comment: >
  
  I haven't read the books, out of pure curiosity, in what way is the book better? Does it show Legolas having trouble in fight scenes or show emotional or moral weaknesses?
context: “Nerfed to Gimli’s level”?!?!?? 
  Gimili killed 42 orcs… by himself. More than Legolas. >
  
  And without a pussy weapon like a bow. My man got his killstreak up close and personal with his axe. >
  
  I don't think you can consider a character a Mary Sue who has as little agency in the story as Legolas does. In the movies, he really doesn't drive any of the action. He is just a henchman for Aragorn, though with a bit of little bit of character development. There are never really any stakes for Legolas. He's just an NPC. 
  A Mary Sue has to have their own problems and obstacles to easily overcome, and Legolas doesn't. He's just an accompanying character who serves to be a bit of a guide for the main characters.
  (This is Movie only. In the book there is quite a bit more going on with Legolas) >
  
  1) you're right, legolas has very little agency
  2) Also agree that there is more going on with book legolas >
  
  !delta >
  
  This delta has been rejected. You can't award yourself a delta.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  This is hilarious >
  
  It's been a while since I watched the movies, but IIRC, there's no fights where Legolas actually matters. Except maybe after Boromir >!dies?!< Did he help Aragorn with the rescue at the end? Spoiler tagged just in case, lol.
  Anyway, movie Legolas exists mostly for cool action sequences, you're right about that. But he doesn't defuse tension. Killing 40-some orcs at Helm's Deep doesn't turn the battle or save his allies (outside the fun action set pieces). His bow doesn't kill the Balrog in Moria. He doesn't shoot the Witch King in the face, or Saruman, or the Mouth of Sauron, or anyone else of consequence.
  So even if you think his action scenes are over the top, it doesn't really make him a Mary Sue. He's just an excellent warrior (on a team of other excellent warriors) whose fighting style looks cool on screen.
  Edit: So I went back and watched the Boromir scene. The fellowship hadn't split up yet, and Legolas didn't help. Merry and Pippin were still >!captured.!< Boromir still >!died.!< He did do a cool shot to kill an orc that was choking Aragorn, I guess, but that's just part of the general action sequence, not really consequential to the plot.
  Keeping up with the spoiler tags, just to stay on the safe side! >
  
  Legolas also singlehandedly took out a war elephant in the Battle of Minas Tirith. It's been a while since I've seen RotK, so I don't remember how much of an impact that had on the battle.
  "That only counts as one!" >
  
  Don't all of the elves have supervision? And he's not particularly more meaningful than anyone else. They're like the best sword boy, axe boy, and bow boy around escorting the one thing that needs to go right or everyone dies to the mountain. Why would one character in the band of ultra awesome best of the best warriors being an ultra awesome best of the best warrior be a problem? By that logic they're basically all Mary Sues. >
  
  Yes, that’s why in Moria, he looked very concerned before anyone else because he could see the Balrog already. >
  
  Isn't he literally hundreds of years old? He would have spent a lot of that time training wouldn't he? >
  
  Hundreds, yes.  Thousands, also yes.  He was at the battle where Isuldir killed Sauron. >
  
  That's not in the book nor the movie.
  Elrond was there, though. >
  
  Legolas is awesome.  He's had centuries of training, combined with his elf biology.  He still bled, and he couldn't save the world on his own.  Plus, he still learns lessons on his adventures.
  He's not an 18-year-old human scavenger in the middle of nowhere, who happens to be fluent in four different languages.  Nor does he become a self-taught magic warrior within a week. >
  
  "He's not an 18-year-old human scavenger in the middle of nowhere, who happens to be fluent in four different languages. Nor does he become a self-taught magic warrior within a week."
  Thats fair >
  
  Wait, what does this have to do with your original post? Is that a characterization of a "power gaming D&D character"? >
  
  No it’s a jab at the newest Star Wars trilogy >
  
  Oh, right. Rey is such a Mary Sue in TFA that it's hardly fair to make that the bar, though. >
  
  In movie canon, Legolas is 2,931 years old during the events of Lord of the Rings. He is the prince of the Mirkwood, so for 2,931 years, he had access to the best tutors the elven realm can offer. Him being a good fighter is not surprising at all and he should be better than anyone except Gandalf. In the books, we don't know the exact age. He could be younger but some quotes imply he was alive during the First Age and that would put him over 6,000 years old.
  ​
  Being able to fight with a bow and sword isn't that uncommon. Aragon is also using a bow like an expert at the beginning of the movie and just forgets about it in the later parts and only uses his sword. But he didn't really seem inferior to Legolas in terms of either despite having 2800 fewer years of training. And if Legolas is power gaming why are the scores with Gimili so close? It's not like Legolas actually outshines Gimili in terms of kills.
  ​
  Legolas' realm was also entrusted with watching over Gollum. The only reason Legolas was in Rivendale at the time was to bring news that they failed and let Gollum escape. His starting arc is literally coming from a failure and seeking to redeem himself. Something that doesn't seem very Gary Sue. Amongst the elves, he also isn't particularly special. There are elves that outshine him immensely.
  ​
  Elves enjoy a lot of advantages over Men, but that doesn't make them inherently Mary Sues. >
  
  Elves in LOTR are OP. So he is not a Mary (Gary) Sue - because his powers are not unrealistic in the world that is established.  
  Elves are just built different. But even with all of his powers, he still couldn't take down that orc who blew up the wall. He still almost died in the battle at the black gate, he still couldn't take out a Balrog. >
  
  But that's SHITTTTTY >
  
  Maybe, but its still not a Mary Sue.  Would you say the Balrog was a Mary Sue because it would absolutely clown on everyone except for Gandalf? >
  
  Let's not forget that it's not like Gandalf did great. He pretty much tied with it but had a 1Up laying around. 
  So, yeah... the Balrog would have toasted the entire Fellowship. >
  
  While it is true that Legolas is a skilled and formidable warrior, it is unfair to label him as a "Mary Sue" character simply because he is successful in battle. Every member of the fellowship has their own unique skills and abilities, and it is only natural that some characters will excel in certain situations while others may struggle.
  Additionally, it is important to remember that Legolas is a highly trained and experienced warrior, and it is not unrealistic for him to be able to hold his own against other races of Middle Earth. His rivalry with Gimli may not have been depicted in the way that some viewers would have preferred, but it is important to remember that this is a fictional story and the characters and their relationships are ultimately up to the interpretation of the writers and filmmakers.
  Furthermore, the fact that Legolas is able to contribute to the success of the fellowship does not make him a "shitty" or "boring" character. On the contrary, his skill and bravery are integral to the group's survival and success in their quest.
  Overall, it is unfair to single out Legolas as the worst-written character in the movies simply because he is effective in battle and has a unique set of skills. Each member of the fellowship has their own strengths and weaknesses, and it is important to appreciate the contributions of all of the characters rather than focusing on the flaws of a single one >
  
  Legolas' struggles are about his own prejudices and biases.  Combat isn't the only place you can win or lose your life.  Is Superman boring because he can't really lose a fight? >
  
  So D&D elves which are almost entirely based off Legolas, especially in the early parts of D&D. But here’s the main thing elves are essentially immortal in the fact that they don’t really age. An elf that’s 100 years old is still a child but they’ve been physically full grown for decades now. An elf starts adulthood at roughly 250-300 years old. Now imagine having that kind of time to train at what you do and not only that kind of time but that’s all before you become an adult. Legolas during the lord of the rings is over 2900 years old. He’s had plenty of time to master multiple different things and go beyond what a human or dwarf could do in their lifetimes. What’s something you love to do? Imagine having nearly 3000 years to become better at it, all while in your physical and mental peak. >
  
  You say movies not books but basically everything Legolas does is in the books as well. >
  
  Yes, but the other characters are downplayed in the movie, particularly Gimli who's basically a walking farther joke. In the books the other characters are more formidable, so Legolas doesn't stand out as much. >
  
  Then your complaint is with Gimlis characterisation (one that I agree with by the by). But apart from the mumakil bit almost everything Legolas does he does in the books. >
  
  Yes, but the point is that Legolas seems less of a Mary Sue when he's working alongside people who are his equal, then when he's not. >
  
  But the problem is only Gimlis? All the other characters a pretty much exactly as powerful as they are in the books. 
  And even with Gimli he is still shown killing orcs, winning the bet at Helms Deep etc, it's just that they use him as a joke character so much as well, which wasn't in the books. >
  
  Gimli, Aragon being miscast (sorry Viggo but you do nor have the charisma) Merry and Pippin being played for comic relief. Hell, even Gandalf was downplayed. >
  
  Merry and pippin were comic relief in the books. They had a growth arc in both film and books.
  
  Aragon being miscast (sorry Viggo but you do nor have the charisma
  
  That's not an issue about Mary Sue's 
  
  even Gandalf was downplayed.
  
  How? What does he do in the books that he doesn't in the film?
  To be clear, I actually don't like the films at all, I just don't think this particular topic is a worthwhile criticism >
  
  What about Frodo? He literally stumbles ass backwards into saving the world. Well, technically Gollum does, but you get the point.
  Every LOTR character is a Mary Sue. Climbing the mountain before the go to Moria is the biggest obstacle they face in the entire trilogy.
  Everything else is just a deus ex machina, think about it. In every situation they are about to lose and then some shit happens at the last minute and saves the bacon.
  Look at Eowen. She trains her whole life to prove that she is just as capable of a fighter as anyone else. Then she beats the Witch King because he's a Redditor and is like, "Well, ackshuwally, no man can harm me and you're a woman."
  Damn, too bad Galadriel or like anyone else never thought of that. >
  
  It's worth noting that Eowyn's defeating the Witch King made a lot more sense in the books but was poorly written in the movie. In the book, the Witch King is protected by prophecy and spells which make him impervious to attacks from man.  As he prepares to battle Eowyn, Merry sneaks behind and stabs his leg with an extremely rare and extremely powerful magic dagger which breaks the prophecy and spells that make the Witch King near invincible.  Distracted as his spirit is unbound from his flesh and without his protective magic, Eowyn slays the Witch King.
  It's a shame the films reduced a great story of underdog friendship and overcoming impossible odds into a weird Reddit Moment scene. There's not really a good way to convey the whole back story in the movie though, so what are ya gonna do I guess. I think Eowyn's character got the shortest end of the stick in the movies though. >
  
  Actually he's a Gary Stu. A Mary Sue is by definition a female character. The equivalent male character is called a Gary Stu. >
  
  And either one is a protagonist. 
  Legolas is just a very competent side character. If he's a problem at all, narratively speaking, he's something else altogether.