Re: Adapting Lord of the Rings

by azriel Sun Jul 19, 2015 10:51 pm

How Viggo's Aragorn felt to me,
I think right from the off he was fully aware of who he is. Hes a man 1st that will honour & defend, the regal side is hidden in his heart, he doesnt feel the need to shove it up yer nose. He willingly puts himself before others & at risk & gives all hes got. peejers made Aragorn confident & strong in the knowledge that he IS Royalty but, it wouldnt break his heart if he could live peaceably as a roaming ranger. thats how it felt to me.I felt peejers was reigning him in as tho we were going to enjoy an amazing climax with Aragorn. Well, that climax didnt happen ( unless it did for Arwen ?) I thought the final with Aragorn wearing the crown was dumbed down a lot, considering the long wait half the world of ME had to go thru until this Great man of myth & legend turned up.

by Mrs Figg Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:23 am

I think you have got it spot on Az. Very Happy

If I may add what I feel about Aragorn. He is a weary Dunedain, he spent years in the wilderness and had a lot of time to think and worry. He is fully aware of his lineage and is proud of it, but he has DOUBTS, not reluctance, he is fully committed but is full of sadness. you can see the melancholy in his eyes, he worries that he is not going to be able to resist the power of the Ring in the end, like Isildur. because he is humble he doesn't bombast and trumpet his kingship to all and sundry, rather he wants to keep it under the radar, that's why he tells Legolas to tone it down a bit. He wants to EARN all the weight of history on his shoulders, he doesn't want his name and lineage to weigh on his mind BEFORE he has proved himself, and he is 100% committed to the fellowship. eg folk who are the children of famous people often screw up, or boast or think they have the attributes and talents of their parents boast about it but fall flat on their faces, Aragorn has one heck of a lineage, but he wants to do things HIS way. In the book he was far more boastful almost a bit arrogant reeling off his titles to wow Eomer rather than proving his worth first. Viggos Aragorn is a quiet chap, he needs to prove he isn't Isildur and he does this in a subtler way. He doubts, maybe too much, Arwen knows his great worth, she tries to drum it in his noodle but you see the pain in his eyes. This isn't being emo, he is one heck of a warrior no way a wimp, but he is nuanced, a bit like Faramir in the books is nuanced. he doubts but he isn't reluctant, as that implies he doesn't want to be king, I think he has lost hope rather than anything else, and I think he only really believes that everything is going to be ok when he sees Arwen walking towards him with tears of joy and love in her eyes.

by azriel Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:50 pm

We're a good team Figglesworth Very Happy

I go with him doubting himself rather than being reluctant. Of course Im going by film Aragorn as opposed Book Aragorn. If he was reluctant he would not have dived in & organized the Elves at Helms Deep, or rallied Theoden at Helms Deep when Theoden was on the verge of giving up well & truly. What I liked about Viggo's Aragorn was, he kept going, he was quietly determined even if the odds were against him. I think Viggo took on the mantle of Aragorn & tried to give him gravitas. He loved Arwen but was only just ( in his heart) to give up Arwen because the future looked unreliable to say the least & he thought she'd stand a better chance with her people. that for anyone is a brave if not tough act to do. He faced Orcs & especially Lurtz alone but that didnt stop him. Admittedly, Im going by the film & not the book because visually Aragorn was a figure of romance as well as humble determination Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:51 pm

he has DOUBTS, not reluctance, he is fully committed but is full of sadness.- Figg

If its only DOUBTS why does he outright reject being King and say he has never wanted to be King. Why does Elrond tell Gandalf he turned form the path of becoming king long ago and choose exile if he is fully committed- he doesn't sound committed at all.
Those ar enot doubts that is outright rejecting becoming King.

As to Aragorn in TT- Tin actually nailed this a page or so back when she pointed out the reluctant king story is inconsistent in the script, in that it dominates his character in fellowship of the Ring, disappears for most of TT and reappears as a plot device in RotK.
Its just sloppy scripting- and thats evident because the same thing happens whenever they go off on a PJ made up tangent- they have to reset the story somehow to get back to here Tolkien had it- this leads to inconsistent Aragorn, and Faramirs actions towards Frodo having no consequences or later effect on his character once the change is done with. Sadly the scripts to this a lot wherever invented material arises- and that includes all round Aragorn's invented reluctance to be king.

by azriel Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:39 pm

I do agree the script was a mish mash, If peejers was writing it on the hoof, as was stated by one & all, I think it certainly shows ! To be honest what a fooked up individual to leave his actors not knowing their arse from their elbow, its no good having them get ready & some plonker runs up 5mins prior to shooting with a different script !

by Mrs Figg Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:29 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:he has DOUBTS, not reluctance, he is fully committed but is full of sadness.- Figg

If its only DOUBTS why does he outright reject being King and say he has never wanted to be King. Why does Elrond tell Gandalf he turned form the path of becoming king long ago and choose exile if he is fully committed- he doesn't sound committed at all.
Those ar enot doubts that is outright rejecting becoming King.

As to Aragorn in TT- Tin actually nailed this a page or so back when she pointed out the reluctant king story is inconsistent in the script, in that it dominates his character in fellowship of the Ring, disappears for most of TT and reappears as a plot device in RotK.
Its just sloppy scripting- and thats evident because the same thing happens whenever they go off on a PJ made up tangent- they have to reset the story somehow to get back to here Tolkien had it- this leads to inconsistent Aragorn, and Faramirs actions towards Frodo having no consequences or later effect on his character once the change is done with. Sadly the scripts to this a lot wherever invented material arises- and that includes all round Aragorn's invented reluctance to be king.

firstly he doesn't say kingship, he says power, and that has a totally different meaning, which you have put a spin on. Turning from the path doesn't mean turning from kingship either, that's another of your inventions. Turning from the path could mean many things and its deliberately ambiguous. Aragorn had no hope of kingship until the battle for Minas Tirith was won, and even then it was almost certainly doomed. He would have had to been delusional not to turn from the path with those odds. The only way he had a chance of kingship was direct confrontation with Sauron, and only an idiot would be sanguine about that outcome. so yes he had doubts. saying he wasn't committed is ludicrous. There isn't a reluctant king story in the script so it doesn't affect the script in the slightest.

by halfwise Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:49 pm

I like how women emote with Viggo's Aragorn - they feel their dude. Laughing

But I think hormones are leading the reading here. The script obviously makes him reluctant. All else has to be read into Viggo's performance, which is necessarily subjective.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:52 pm

which you have put a spin on.- Figg

The conversation is about reforging Narsil- the symbol of Kingship. Its about being king!
PJ uses the word power because they are deliberately trying to draw a parallel between Aragorn's instinctive rejecting of power (a good thing in PJ's version) and the Ring as corruption force via power (bad thing always in PJ's version).

'Turning from the path doesn't mean turning from kingship either, that's another of your inventions.'

Again the conversation is about who could be King and lead the people against Sauron.
Elrond says Aragorn turned from that path in response to a direct comment by Gandalf that Aragorn has the right to be King and could unite the people.
Again its clearly a conversation about being King.

'Aragorn had no hope of kingship until the battle for Minas Tirith was won'

Book Aragorn is driven by that hope from before the reader even meets him. His elvish name is Estel- 'Hope'
You are only highlighting how different they are and how much more reluctant film Aragorn is.

'There isn't a reluctant king story in the script so it doesn't affect the script in the slightest.'

Seriously?- you are still claiming this?!

by Mrs Figg Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:09 pm

yes. because he isn't reluctant.

by Mrs Figg Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:10 pm

halfwise wrote:I like how women emote with Viggo's Aragorn - they feel their dude.

But I think hormones are leading the reading here. The script obviously makes him reluctant. All else has to be read into Viggo's performance, which is necessarily subjective.

I never fancied Aragorn

I fancied Boromir and Elrond What a Face

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:53 pm

because he isn't reluctant.- Figg

"Both Aragorn and Faramir, I found them two of the most difficult characters to write. And one of those reasons is their journeys are laid out before you in a very simplistic way to begin with, certainly, to begin with when you very first meet them in the book..... by the time you hit the council of Elrond with Aragorn, Aragorn is basically saying, This is who I am. I'm gonna take up this sword. He has no doubts. He knows what he must do. And that is, dramatically, never gonna work on film."- Philippa Boyens

by azriel Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:50 am

Obviously for my part Halfy is correct. I see the person 1st that Viggo is portraying. I think I may have a smidgeon of romance left in the deep dark cavern of my heart ? wonder how I would have accepted Aragorn if someone else played his role ?

by Mrs Figg Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:51 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:because he isn't reluctant.- Figg

"Both Aragorn and Faramir, I found them two of the most difficult characters to write. And one of those reasons is their journeys are laid out before you in a very simplistic way to begin with, certainly, to begin with when you very first meet them in the book..... by the time you hit the council of Elrond with Aragorn, Aragorn is basically saying, This is who I am. I'm gonna take up this sword. He has no doubts. He knows what he must do. And that is, dramatically, never gonna work on film."- Philippa Boyens

where does it say in that quote that Aragorn is reluctant? answer. nowhere because it doesn't exist. Boyens quite rightly is saying that book Aragorn doesn't have doubts but film Aragorn does. As I just explained in great detail. that's DOUBTS, NOT RELUCTANCE. that quote backs up my point.

As to the hormone thing I think Halfy is right, its a gender difference issue. I have noticed a lot of males take exception to the supposed 'feminization' of Frodo and Aragorn because they have been given so called female character traits such as passivity or doubt or less action, as if this makes them somehow lesser or less masculine therefore less valid and not in keeping with the book. most of this is due to the fact that the so called coven of female witches have emasculated beloved male characters making them sissies or forementioned Big Girls Blouses I think a lot of blame is put on these wimmin who don't like the book and are determined to undermine these characters. which is bs. I think a lot of this has to do with dislike of Boyens & co. you will never hear of a male character being 'too male' but you do hear of male characters being 'too female', like its a bad thing. that's why people don't tend to criticise Boromir, because he is straight up male with no grey areas. Frodo and Aragorn in the films are somehow seen as less male therefore less valid less like the book, are wimps. But I think an Aragorn without doubts is less interesting to watch in a long trilogy, a Frodo who is without vulnerability is less interesting too. I think the subtle changes make for a more nuanced and layered characterisation and I don't think they are weaker just different. The reluctant king thing is a fabrication, a false criticism, it calls into question his integrity and masculinity, it calls him a coward, passive, emo, a wimp, and its not a long road to sissy, Jessie, and all those other nice female names for gentle men who display their 'feminine side'.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:23 pm

I think your off your chump on this one Figg- he is so clearly reluctant to be king in the film its hard to know why you are still arguing the point- his reluctance to be King is precisely what they replaced book Aragorns lack of doubt with (and the quote above talks about book Aragorn, not film Aragorn, so doubts refers to him, film Aragorn they replaced the perceived lack of doubt in Aragorn with reluctance). Their script shows his reluctance, the character himself outright says he doesn't want the power of being King and never has had- thats even beyond reluctance it is an outright rejection of being King- this is the start point for the character arc as Boyens and co set it up.
But Boyens is no more aware of Tolkiens character than you seem to be, given she seems to have confused his lack of doubts over his right to be King, with his lack of doubts over his ability to carry it off- as he has those doubts in the book but she seems to have missed them.

'I think an Aragorn without doubts is less interesting to watch in a long trilogy, a Frodo who is without vulnerability is less interesting too. I think the subtle changes make for a more nuanced and layered characterisation and I don't think they are weaker just different.'- Figg

You are admitting here that film and book versions are not the same, the opposite of what you began by saying- now you can prefer Boyens poorly written inconsistent made up they go along version if you like, thats your choice- but to pretends he is not reluctant in the films is to claim night is day. Its that obvious. And the changes are not subtle at all- they are fundamental to Aragorns character and how he acts and presents himself throughout and it has knock on effects to other characters and scenes and how they play out.

'Frodo and Aragorn in the films are somehow seen as less male therefore less valid less like the book, are wimps'

No they are just shittly written. Film Frodo they made a pacifist from the start rather than his pacifisms being an outcome of hs experiences. Its just bad. Nothing to do with masculinity- shit writing is just shit writing.

'The reluctant king thing is a fabrication, a false criticism, it calls into question his integrity and masculinity, it calls him a coward, passive, emo, a wimp, and its not a long road to sissy, Jessie, and all those other nice female names for gentle men who display their 'feminine side'.'

Its a fabrication ok- its a fabrication of PJ and co, and it calls into question their ability to adapt Tolkiens characters, but nothing else. They choose to make him reluctant, they choose to invent the idea he had turned from being King and that he did not want to wield Narsil and be King- that's all PJ and co- and its nothing like the book version.
My problem is not that their changes make him less male, its that they make him less interesting, less of Tolkiens character and the changes are not well thought out, inconsistently applied to the character and are a cliché seen many times before.
I prefer Tolkiens Aragorn, I think its better written, better thought out and he has a better story and in an adaptation of Tolkiens work it would have been nice had Tolkien's Aragorn made an appearance (or his Frodo for that matter, of Faramir, or Merry , or Pippin, or Denethor.....)

by halfwise Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:10 pm

It's very likely their version of Aragorn came from PJ's inability to imagine Aragorn drawing a broken sword in the Prancing Pony without it looking comical. So from that he's not carrying Narsil, and therefore they have to explain why. It's a guess, but it makes sense to me.

by David H Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:42 pm

"Both Aragorn and Faramir, I found them two of the most difficult characters to write. And one of those reasons is their journeys are laid out before you in a very simplistic way to begin with, certainly, to begin with when you very first meet them in the book..... by the time you hit the council of Elrond with Aragorn, Aragorn is basically saying, This is who I am. I'm gonna take up this sword. He has no doubts. He knows what he must do. And that is, dramatically, never gonna work on film."- Philippa Boyens

Aside from the discussion of reluctance and/or doubt, what I find interesting is that Boyens seems not to see the ambivalence that I see in Tolkien's Aragorn from the start. I would have liked to have seen a script with fewer words, that left a little more room for mystery around Aragorn's internal conflicts and therefore more room for audience interpretation. I think Viggo had the acting chops to pull that off if PJ and Boyens had trusted him and themselves more.

by Mrs Figg Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:58 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think your off your chump on this one Figg- he is so clearly reluctant to be king in the film its hard to know why you are still arguing the point- his reluctance to be King is precisely what they replaced book Aragorns lack of doubt with (and the quote above talks about book Aragorn, not film Aragorn, so doubts refers to him, film Aragorn they replaced the perceived lack of doubt in Aragorn with reluctance). Their script shows his reluctance, the character himself outright says he doesn't want the power of being King and never has had- thats even beyond reluctance it is an outright rejection of being King- this is the start point for the character arc as Boyens and co set it up.

I am still arguing the point on this one because I am right. Their script doesn't show reluctance but doubt. He doesn't reject his kingship.

But Boyens is no more aware of Tolkiens character than you seem to be, given she seems to have confused his lack of doubts over his right to be King, with his lack of doubts over his ability to carry it off- as he has those doubts in the book but she seems to have missed them.

I am perfectly aware of Tolkiens character. your statement ''she seems to have confused his lack of doubts over his right to be King, with his lack of doubts over his ability to carry it off'' makes no sense. whose lack of doubts? book Aragorn does have doubts, as does film Aragorn.

'I think an Aragorn without doubts is less interesting to watch in a long trilogy, a Frodo who is without vulnerability is less interesting too. I think the subtle changes make for a more nuanced and layered characterisation and I don't think they are weaker just different.'- Figg

You are admitting here that film and book versions are not the same, the opposite of what you began by saying- now you can prefer Boyens poorly written inconsistent made up they go along version if you like, thats your choice- but to pretends he is not reluctant in the films is to claim night is day. Its that obvious. And the changes are not subtle at all- they are fundamental to Aragorns character and how he acts and presents himself throughout and it has knock on effects to other characters and scenes and how they play out.

I have always admitted film and book Aragorn are not the same, or haven't you been reading my posts How is it the opposite when I have never stated they are not different, I just wrote in my last post they ARE different. The subtle changes have no direct effect on his actions, the end result is the same and his character is intact

'Frodo and Aragorn in the films are somehow seen as less male therefore less valid less like the book, are wimps'

No they are just shittly written. Film Frodo they made a pacifist from the start rather than his pacifisms being an outcome of hs experiences. Its just bad. Nothing to do with masculinity- shit writing is just shit writing.

He isn't made a pacifist, he is made more vulnerable and young, you may not like this, but I think it adds a lot. The writing is excellent.i also notice instead of engaging in my arguments you just go straight for personal comments and snidery

'The reluctant king thing is a fabrication, a false criticism, it calls into question his integrity and masculinity, it calls him a coward, passive, emo, a wimp, and its not a long road to sissy, Jessie, and all those other nice female names for gentle men who display their 'feminine side'.'

Its a fabrication ok- its a fabrication of PJ and co, and it calls into question their ability to adapt Tolkiens characters, but nothing else. They choose to make him reluctant, they choose to invent the idea he had turned from being King and that he did not want to wield Narsil and be King- that's all PJ and co- and its nothing like the book version.

That patently and demonstrably untrue. laughably so. The scene in the tent with Elrond is proof lest you conveniently forget

My problem is not that their changes make him less male, its that they make him less interesting, less of Tolkiens character and the changes are not well thought out, inconsistently applied to the character and are a cliché seen many times before.
I prefer Tolkiens Aragorn, I think its better written, better thought out and he has a better story

you may prefer book Aragorn, but in many ways he isn't as interesting or as fresh as film Aragorn. book Aragorn is a straightforward hero, he does what it says on the tin, there aren't any deviations to hero mode, he is noble and brave, he has his destiny to fulfil, but we don't see under the grim exterior, we don't see the human being, the man wracked with self doubt, loss of hope, watching the loss of everything he loves just slip from his fingers, he tells Arwen it was all just a dream, its hearbreaking, in your determination to hate PJ and co you miss all this.

and in an adaptation of Tolkiens work it would have been nice had Tolkien's Aragorn made an appearance (or his Frodo for that matter, of Faramir, or Merry , or Pippin, or Denethor.....)

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:27 pm

Their script doesn't show reluctance but doubt. He doesn't reject his kingship.- Figg

I do want that power. I have never wanted it- Aragorn

He turned from that path long ago and has chosen exile- Elrond

Two examples where the script openly and blatantly states Aragorn in the film has rejected the role of King and is not seeking it when we meet him, and has in fact not been for a long time according to Elrond.
These are not doubts about becoming King its an outright rejection of doing so. He has already turned aside from that path before we meet him in the film- it says so right there in the actual words coming out of characters faces. I am not sure how you continue to miss this fact.

''she seems to have confused his lack of doubts over his right to be King, with his lack of doubts over his ability to carry it off'' makes no sense. whose lack of doubts?"

Makes perfect sense- Boyens claims book Aragorn has no doubts, this is completely inaccurate and shows how little the script writers understood the character, he does- he just has no doubts over his right and his destiny, its his ability to pull it off he doubts and how he is going to achieve it.

'The subtle changes have no direct effect on his actions, the end result is the same and his character is intact'

How can changing the very basis on which the character operates be subtle? It completely alters how he approaches everyone and everything. His character from the book is not present in the films such a large change is it. You cant just take one of the central driving pillars of his character, swap it out for something which is the exact opposite and then claim it leaves the book character intact. Its a complete contradiction.

'He isn't made a pacifist'

Where is he not a pacifist?- 'Frodo he falls over in the face of danger.' He doesn't even get to stab the troll in the foot in Moria Mad

In the book its not until the plains of Gorgoroth in Mordor that Frodo gives Sting away to Sam and declares he will carry no blade and strike no further blows. But the attitude book Frodo has at the end is the one film Frodo starts with- in my view anything difficult to write or that would take work and maybe talent, they wimp out on and just avoid it- so Aragorn, Faramir, difficult characters so simplify them into easily recognisable types, Frodo's journey to pacifism, too tricky just make him it from the start, the class divisions between hobbits and Sam and Frodo's relationship regards it, bit tricky lets just lose it, Denethor bit of a complex character in a complex political situation, bugger it lets just make him a crazy mad man and take all the politics out.... and so on and on all the way through.
That's why I say the writing is shit- wherever possible they dump complexity for simplicity and take the path of least resistance and least work and resort to falling back on well used tropes and cliché instead.

'That patently and demonstrably untrue. laughably so'

Exactly how so? In fact Id love you demonstrate to me how it is untrue given its in the actual script they wrote.

'The scene in the tent with Elrond is proof lest you conveniently forget'

Um you do understand thats the end of the reluctant king arc, by highlighting it you only highlight the fact there is a reluctant king arc- that's when Aragorn accepts he is going to be King and takes Anduril as the symbol of his acceptance of being King. So um of course he is not reluctant in that scene- thats the whole point of the scene- its where the reluctant king arc leads. Why do you think they invented this scene in the first place? Why do they nee it if its not there to complete the reluctant King story arc?
Its why unlike in the book he doesn't carry Narsil with him, its why Narsil is not reforged into Anduril in the film until an entire two books later than in the originals.
Why do you think Aragorn didn't reforge Anduril at Rivendell and take it with him as in the book if he was not reluctant?- how do you explain this change in the films if the reluctant King thing is only in my head (and in the heads of almost everyone else who has watched the films?).

'in many ways he isn't as interesting or as fresh as film Aragorn'

Bull- book Aragorn has a far better story and much stronger emotional drama, but its harder to do- you have to bring out his situation- that by declaring his love for Arwen before a chance to be king arises means he is in the position of expecting to be the last of his line. He tells both Arwen and his mother in the book that he cannot see how his destiny can come about- his fore-bearers all grew old and died without it happening in their life time- but they ensured the line survived- if a chance does not come for Aragorn his declared love for Arwen means no other wife and no descendants (in fact when Elrond finds out one of the conditions is that Aragorn cannot take another as his wife while he waits on a chance, and the chance has to be that of becoming King of Gondor and Arnor- a big ask and unlikely to come about)- but everything ends for him and his line if that chance doesn't come along. And if he succeeds he causes untold, eternally lasting, pain to the person he loves as a father.
That's the stakes and the position Aragorn has put himself into when we meet him. Its why Tolkien describes his demeanour in the book as 'grim', and no wonder with that weighing on him.
And that's far more complex and interesting than him just not wanting the power of being King.

On top of that we have all his doubts about his ability to carry out the task when the choice does arise- its the weight of this that's on his mind at Parth Galen before he rallies himself into making the tough choices. Just one disastrous choice for Aragorn and his one chance is gone- its why his decision not to follow Frodo is so important and why its so tough to make and why he is so hard on himself in the making of it.
There is plenty in book Aragorn to bring out in dramatisation without abandoning what makes him who he is and replacing it with something completely different.
As to his story with Arwen- give me the real deal over PJ's chocolate box version any day- give me Arwen and Aragorn pledging their love together in defiance of the east and rejecting the darkness together as one in oaths and bonds of love sworn to each other, defying even immortality and mortality.

by Mrs Figg Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:42 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Their script doesn't show reluctance but doubt. He doesn't reject his kingship.- Figg

I do want that power. I have never wanted it- Aragorn

He turned from that path long ago and has chosen exile- Elrond

Two examples where the script openly and blatantly states Aragorn in the film has rejected the role of King and is not seeking it when we meet him, and has in fact not been for a long time according to Elrond.

rubbish. by exile Elrond means the Dunedain, Aragorn chose to follow his lonely path in exile as a Ranger. Aragorn knew he was far more useful as a Ranger protecting ME than mooning over his destiny. This has nothing whatsoever to do with being a reluctant king. you have totally missed the point. By saying he turned from that path Elrond is saying that Aragorn has become Dunedain, nothing more.

These are not doubts about becoming King its an outright rejection of doing so. He has already turned aside from that path before we meet him in the film- it says so right there in the actual words coming out of characters faces. I am not sure how you continue to miss this fact.

nope its only a reference to the Dunedain, explaining to an audience why Aragorn hadn't done anything about his kingship claim before.

''she seems to have confused his lack of doubts over his right to be King, with his lack of doubts over his ability to carry it off'' makes no sense. whose lack of doubts?"

Makes perfect sense- Boyens claims book Aragorn has no doubts, this is completely inaccurate and shows how little the script writers understood the character, he does- he just has no doubts over his right and his destiny, its his ability to pull it off he doubts and how he is going to achieve it.

In the film Aragorn could have taken Narsil if he wished, but he chose to leave it as a museum piece not because he has denied his kingship but because you cant have power without earning it first. After the events at Mount Doom isildur had the chance to destroy the Ring, but he did not, for the power of the Ring overcame him. So why would Aragorn keep Narsil and all it stands for with this in his mind? He had to go through a kind of apprentiship in the Dunedain, before he could accept the sword and the kingship. This makes the character more believable. The doubting hero, slowly emerging through the course of the films. Viggo’s Aragorn is more believable, than Aragorn in the books.

'The subtle changes have no direct effect on his actions, the end result is the same and his character is intact'

How can changing the very basis on which the character operates be subtle? It completely alters how he approaches everyone and everything. His character from the book is not present in the films such a large change is it. You cant just take one of the central driving pillars of his character, swap it out for something which is the exact opposite and then claim it leaves the book character intact. Its a complete contradiction.

it doesn't do anything of the kind, because the reluctant king thing is fabrication

'He isn't made a pacifist'

Where is he not a pacifist?- 'Frodo he falls over in the face of danger.' He doesn't even get to stab the troll in the foot in Moria
In the book its not until the plains of Gorgoroth in Mordor that Frodo gives Sting away to Sam and declares he will carry no blade and strike no further blows. But the attitude book Frodo has at the end is the one film Frodo starts with- in my view anything difficult to write or that would take work and maybe talent, they wimp out on and just avoid it- so Aragorn, Faramir, difficult characters so simplify them into easily recognisable types, Frodo's journey to pacifism, too tricky just make him it from the start, the class divisions between hobbits and Sam and Frodo's relationship regards it, bit tricky lets just lose it, Denethor bit of a complex character in a complex political situation, bugger it lets just make him a crazy mad man and take all the politics out.... and so on and on all the way through.
That's why I say the writing is shit- wherever possible they dump complexity for simplicity and take the path of least resistance and least work and resort to falling back on well used tropes and cliché instead.

I suggest perhaps you don't understand what pacifist means

'That patently and demonstrably untrue. laughably so'

Exactly how so? In fact Id love you demonstrate to me how it is untrue given its in the actual script they wrote.

find yourself a Youtube clip

'The scene in the tent with Elrond is proof lest you conveniently forget'

Um you do understand thats the end of the reluctant king arc, by highlighting it you only highlight the fact there is a reluctant king arc- that's when Aragorn accepts he is going to be King and takes Anduril as the symbol of his acceptance of being King. So um of course he is not reluctant in that scene- thats the whole point of the scene- its where the reluctant king arc leads. Why do you think they invented this scene in the first place? Why do they nee it if its not there to complete the reluctant King story arc?

um there isn't a reluctant king arc

Its why unlike in the book he doesn't carry Narsil with him, its why Narsil is not reforged into Anduril in the film until an entire two books later than in the originals.
Why do you think Aragorn didn't reforge Anduril at Rivendell and take it with him as in the book if he was not reluctant?- how do you explain this change in the films if the reluctant King thing is only in my head (and in the heads of almost everyone else who has watched the films?).

'in many ways he isn't as interesting or as fresh as film Aragorn'

Bull- book Aragorn has a far better story and much stronger emotional drama,

bull right back atcha!

but its harder to do- you have to bring out his situation- that by declaring his love for Arwen before a chance to be king arises means he is in the position of expecting to be the last of his line. He tells both Arwen and his mother in the book that he cannot see how his destiny can come about- his fore-bearers all grew old and died without it happening in their life time- but they ensured the line survived- if a chance does not come for Aragorn his declared love for Arwen means no other wife and no descendants (in fact when Elrond finds out one of the conditions is that Aragorn cannot take another as his wife while he waits on a chance, and the chance has to be that of becoming King of Gondor and Arnor- a big ask and unlikely to come about)- but everything ends for him and his line if that chance doesn't come along. And if he succeeds he causes untold, eternally lasting, pain to the person he loves as a father.
That's the stakes and the position Aragorn has put himself into when we meet him. Its why Tolkien describes his demeanour in the book as 'grim', and no wonder with that weighing on him.
And that's far more complex and interesting than him just not wanting the power of being King.

On top of that we have all his doubts about his ability to carry out the task when the choice does arise- its the weight of this that's on his mind at Parth Galen before he rallies himself into making the tough choices. Just one disastrous choice for Aragorn and his one chance is gone- its why his decision not to follow Frodo is so important and why its so tough to make and why he is so hard on himself in the making of it.
There is plenty in book Aragorn to bring out in dramatisation without abandoning what makes him who he is and replacing it with something completely different.
As to his story with Arwen- give me the real deal over PJ's chocolate box version any day- give me Arwen and Aragorn pledging their love together in defiance of the east and rejecting the darkness together as one in oaths and bonds of love sworn to each other, defying even immortality and mortality.

by malickfan Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:50 pm

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:57 pm

by exile Elrond means the Dunedain- Figg

One - there are no Dunedain in the films- we only see or hear of Aragorn as a ranger and there is no Grey Company of Rangers.

Two - Elrond says Aragorn has turned from that path in a direct reply to Gandalf saying there is one person who can become king and unite the peoples of men- Aragorn.
So the subject matter is clearly not about the Dunedain who are never mentioned once in all three films, but about becoming King and uniting the races of Men, which not only is mentioned, but is the subject of the very conversation we are discussing.

How therefore you can claim its about the Dunedain who are not even in the films, never mentioned once and have nothing to do with the conversation in which Elrond says what he does about Aragorn is beyond me.

'explaining to an audience why Aragorn hadn't done anything about his kingship claim before.'

Yes that exactly what it does- and the explanation given in the films, first by Elrond and then by Aragorn himself is that he turned from that path and he does not want and never has wanted that power. It couldn't be more explicit.

'I suggest perhaps you don't understand what pacifist mean'

Pacifism is opposition to war and violence.
As film Frodo seems to be from the start. He doesn't defeat a barrow wight by chopping its arm off at the wrist, he doesn't confront the Nazgul and try to stab the Witchking on Weathertop, he doesn't defy the Riders at the Ford ect ect. He seems pretty pacifist compared to the book version.

'find yourself a Youtube clip'

No you find a youtube clip that proves this- you are the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.

'um there isn't a reluctant king arc'

So explain to me why they changed the reforging of the sword and moved it from the start of the quest to almost the end?
What is the purpose of the scene where Narsil is reforged and Elrond takes it to Aragorn?
Unless you can explain the purpose these changes serve in the script other than it being because of the reluctant king story (which is what they are for) then your argument holds no water.

'bull right back atcha!'

So you think the cliché of making Aragorn reluctant to be King better than the complex emotional story Tolkien gives us? Shocked

Malick- either my pc is playing up or your post is blank!

by malickfan Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:06 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:by exile Elrond means the Dunedain- Figg

One - there are no Dunedain in the films- we only see or hear of Aragorn as a ranger and there is no Grey Company of Rangers.

Two - Elrond says Aragorn has turned from that path in a direct reply to Gandalf saying there is one person who can become king and unite the peoples of men- Aragorn.
So the subject matter is clearly not about the Dunedain who are never mentioned once in all three films, but about becoming King and uniting the races of Men, which not only is mentioned, but is the subject of the very conversation we are discussing.

How therefore you can claim its about the Dunedain who are not even in the films, never mentioned once and have nothing to do with the conversation in which Elrond says what he does about Aragorn is beyond me.

Good point, I remember when I first watched the films being very confused as to what a Ranger did/was and why the heir to the throne of Gondor lived so far from its borders, that said I don't think the audience needed to know more about Aragorn's backstory, as a then casual viewer I understood all that was implied, modern audiences relate more to fallible heroes, and Jackson shifted the focus of the book from the hobbits to the King in exile, so he needed a arc to pay that off. Not saying its right, but its more in keeping with the blockbuster angle he was going for.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:10 pm

its more in keeping with the blockbuster angle he was going for.- Mallick

True it is, but its not at all in keeping with Tolkien or his character of Aragorn who has no reluctance about his right or his destiny to be King at all, just doubts about how to achieve it and being up to the job.

by Mrs Figg Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:12 pm

he doesn't have reluctance in PJs version either.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:57 pm

You dont get away with that claim unless you can answer the questions posed-

Why does Aragorn say he does not and never has wanted that power?
Why does Elrond say he turned aside and choose exile (Dunedain is not a good answer as they are not in the films- you cant use book knowledge to support stuff in the films when they've cut those bit of the book out of the films!)
Why are both these things said within the context of conversations about becoming King?
Why does Elrond tell Aragorn his mother always knew he could not escape his destiny, unless Aragorn up till then has been trying to escape his destiny?
Why does Aragorn fear having the blood of Isildur means he will fail? When in the book he is proud of being Isidur's heir.
Why does he not reforge Narsil when Elrond gives him the chance at Rivendell if he is not reluctant about becoming king?
Why does Aragorn never declare himself as he does in the book with a role call of his ancestry proving he is the King?
Why does he not carry Narsil to also prove he is King?
Why does Gandalf not herald him at Rohan as the 'heir of Kings'?
Why does Elrond reforge the sword much later then take it all the way to Rohan to give to Aragorn?
Why does he have to persuade Aragorn he is ready to be King and to take the word if Aragorn was not previously reluctant to do so?