Re: Adapting Lord of the Rings

by Mrs Figg Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:05 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote: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?

Why don't you read my posts?
Why dont you just accept I am right for once?

by azriel Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:11 pm

Praps you could include Arwen encouraging Aragorn when he's not feeling particularly brave ?

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:16 pm

Why don't you read my posts?- Figg

Because none of your posts have provided answers to any of these questions.
In fact most of them you have carefully avoided addressing at all.
And those you have answered- such as saying Elrond is talking about something which is not actually in the film or supported by the context of the conversation- are not up to scratch as persuasive arguments.

Why dont you just accept I am right for once?- Figg

Because all the evidence says you are not.
And in this instance I could ask the same question of you?
As unless you can explain all the changes made in the film to Aragorn and so answer all the questions above -giving a reason and a story-arc other than reluctance which answers them all- your position cannot be backed up by the content of the film.

by Eldorion Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:21 pm

I sometimes agree with Mrs Figg in these arguments, but PJ's Aragorn is so plainly, obviously a reluctant king (before eventually growing into and accepting the role) that I'm still not sure how this turned into an actual, multi-page debate.

This interpretation is by no means exclusive to Petty or even to purists as a whole. Do a Google search and you'll come back with pages of blog posts and magazine articles (mostly fawning over the films and Viggo in particular) that describe Aragorn as a reluctant hero. Here's one of them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/movies/moviesspecial/07LYAL.html

"One of the things that appeals to Viggo about Aragorn is that he's not just an action hero," Mr. Jackson continued. "In his own way, Aragorn is just as thoughtful as Viggo. There's a reluctance on his part to become the king he was meant to be. In a sense, that mirrors Viggo's reluctance to become a movie star."

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:30 pm

I'm still not sure how this turned into an actual, multi-page debate.- Eldo

Because I wont let it go and Figgs wont admit defeat! (depending on the debate our two names are interchangeable in that sentence!)

by David H Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:50 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Because I wont let it go and Figgs wont admit defeat! (depending on the debate our two names are interchangeable in that sentence!)

Be honest. You'd be disappointed if she did, wouldn't you? Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:55 pm

Disappointed wouldn't cover it Dave. Mad

This is why I admire and respect Figg so much, you know where you stand in a scrap with Figg, same place as you do with me- confronted with a wall of bloodymindedness and no small amount of crabbit Very Happy

Now thats a woman! I wouldn't have the lass any other way.

by Radaghast Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:44 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:...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.

Frodo never displayed invulnerability in any universe. The book Frodo just does things that show why he is worthy of bearing the Ring, which movie Frodo simply does not—at all.

Bravery does not equal invulnerability.

by Radaghast Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:46 pm

Re: Aragorn, I can see why they changed his characterization, though I don't agree with it by any means. The filmmakers were either unable to depict the book character without making him seem like an arrogant prick or were unwilling to try.

by Mrs Figg Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:10 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Disappointed wouldn't cover it Dave. This is why I admire and respect Figg so much, you know where you stand in a scrap with Figg, same place as you do with me- confronted with a wall of bloodymindedness and no small amount of crabbit Now thats a woman! I wouldn't have the lass any other way.

by Mrs Figg Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:24 pm

you know what I really love about the changes to Aragorns character, its the echoing journey he goes on with Frodo. They both struggle with fear and doubts, wobble bow and again, but steadily grow in the knowledge that its them and them only who are saddled with this quest, so they had better just get on with it no matter what. If Aragorn had been rock solid from the start it wouldn't have been such a satisfying ending.

"I do no know what strength is in my blood, but I swear to you, I will not let the White City fall, nor our people fail." he said this at the end of Fellowship. this is not a reluctant king, but a once and future king pledging his oath to Boromir. whats reluctant about this?

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:23 am

If Aragorn had been rock solid from the start it wouldn't have been such a satisfying ending.- Figg

But he isn't rock solid in the book. He is certain of his right and of his claim but nothing beyond that.

That's an interesting quote you have picked. Lets pull it to bits and see what it's made of! Twisted Evil

The first bit- "I do not know what strength is in my blood" is an addition, its not in the book, and its another reference to the reluctant king arc, as we have already had a conversation about Aragorns blood at Rivendell with Arwen, in which we learned Aragorn fears the inherent weakness in his blood. So it is raising that question again and Aragorns fears he will fail because of it- he questions here how much strength is in it.

The next bit is equally interesting, as again the word change from the book is informative. A notable change is from Minas Tirith in the book to White City in the film- I am not sure if this is purely because the medium is visual an people will associate the place visually with Mina Tirith when they see it, or if its an allusion to Aragons line in the book after the lament "They will look for him from the White Tower, but he shall not come."
Also the film Aragorn uses the word 'fail' which is not in the book, in the book he says 'fall' only in direct reference to Minas Tirith, but here they extend the sentence so it now has a different focus- on not letting their people fail.

So why change it? Why the addition? Well people can fail but only kingdoms fall. And kingdoms need a king. By changing it from fall to fail they make it more personal sounding but remove it one instance from any association with kingship. Also it puts the emphasis back on the potential and the notion that there is something inherently in Man that will always fail- this is backed up too by the changes made to Elrond's character and his attitude towards Men and the addition of the invented notion that Aragorn believes Isildur was a liability who failed and displayed an inherent weakness in the blood line.
So in fact it does play into their reluctant king arc after all!

by Mrs Figg Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:54 pm

wow some epic wriggling and twisting there Petty. but to no avail. Aragorn was merely referring to both the city and its people. He wouldn't let either be defeated. The reference to the White City is shorthand for the kingdom of Gondor. and he is stating the opposite to Elronds predictions that Men would fail because they were weak, Aragorn is stating he wont let them fail. how clearer can you get. compliments for the contortionism though.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:31 pm

The reference to the White City is shorthand for the kingdom of Gondor.- Figg

That's not the issue.

When looking at an adaptation you start with the original text then compare it to the final text in the adaptation and see what they changed.
Script writers don't change words without a purpose, and they certainly don't invent new material without a purpose.
So we have to look at what that purpose is.

The first made up bit is about not knowing if he has the strength in his blood- its a clear linking to the earlier conversation about his blood- and that conversation was about his reluctance.
As Tin pointed out earlier they try to have a one film arc for Aragorn in FotR whilst also having a 3 film arc- this means what we get is inconsistent- Aragorn is set up as reluctant and doubtful in FotR at Rivendell, then he refuses the Ring at Parth Galen and here he has moved from 'I have never wanted to be King' to "I dont know what strength I have, but I will try"

They are trying to have their cake and eat it here- they are trying to have a resolution to the reluctant king thing in FotR- just as his rejection of the Ring is his conclusion to the 'am I as weak as Isildur' arc, but they want to keep the reluctant thing going in RotK for the reforging of Narsil ect (even though it all but disappears in TT), so Aragorn here is not decisive- he is not saying yet he wants to be King- this explains the addition at the end about people, shifting the emphasis of that sentence from the book, where its on Minas Tirith as the capitol of a state, to its people.

But trying to have their cake and eat it makes film Aragorn inconsistent- and your quote is a good example of where film Aragorn and book Aragorn clash- in the book he unequivocally is going to try to be King, in the film they want to keep this famous pledge as anyone who has read the book is expecting it, but they also have changed him to be reluctant, which doesn't fit with the words in the book at this point- so what we end up with is a mish-mash of both.

If this is not the case how do you explain the changes between the text and film?

by Mrs Figg Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:40 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The reference to the White City is shorthand for the kingdom of Gondor.- Figg

That's not the issue.

When looking at an adaptation you start with the original text then compare it to the final text in the adaptation and see what they changed.
Script writers don't change words without a purpose, and they certainly don't invent new material without a purpose.
So we have to look at what that purpose is.

The first made up bit is about not knowing if he has the strength in his blood- its a clear linking to the earlier conversation about his blood- and that conversation was about his reluctance.

no. that conversation was about his doubts.

As Tin pointed out earlier they try to have a one film arc for Aragorn in FotR whilst also having a 3 film arc- this means what we get is inconsistent- Aragorn is set up as reluctant and doubtful in FotR at Rivendell, then he refuses the Ring at Parth Galen and here he has moved from 'I have never wanted to be King' to "I dont know what strength I have, but I will try"

no again you are wrong, its not a one film arc but one long continual and progressive arc throughout the 3 films. He starts off as having doubts but by the end of fellowship he has overcome his fears and doubts and the catalyst was the oath made to Boromir. From then on his doubting has been mastered to a greater extent.

They are trying to have their cake and eat it here- they are trying to have a resolution to the reluctant king thing in FotR-

theres no resolution here because theres no reluctant king to resolve.

just as his rejection of the Ring is his conclusion to the 'am I as weak as Isildur' arc, but they want to keep the reluctant thing going in RotK for the reforging of Narsil ect

he isn't reluctant to take Narsil, he actually looked very proud to take it.

(even though it all but disappears in TT), so Aragorn here is not decisive- he is not saying yet he wants to be King- this explains the addition at the end about people, shifting the emphasis of that sentence from the book, where its on Minas Tirith as the capitol of a state, to its people.

the kingdom of Gondor is mentioned first, people are mentioned last so theres no emphasis.

But trying to have their cake and eat it makes film Aragorn inconsistent- and your quote is a good example of where film Aragorn and book Aragorn clash- in the book he unequivocally is going to try to be King, in the film they want to keep this famous pledge as anyone who has read the book is expecting it, but they also have changed him to be reluctant, which doesn't fit with the words in the book at this point- so what we end up with is a mish-mash of both.

book and film Aragorn are perfectly in sinc during the pledge. Theres absolutely no difference between them.

If this is not the case how do you explain the changes between the text and film? its been adapted for the screen, it tends to happen.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:06 pm

no. that conversation was about his doubts.- Figg

I thought we had covered this one and how Aragorn is quite obviously a reluctant king, in as Eldo pointed out, in PJ's own words he is a reluctant King.

'its not a one film arc but one long continual and progressive arc throughout the 3 films.'

I thought you just said there was no reluctant King arc?

'by the end of fellowship he has overcome his fears and doubts and the catalyst was the oath made to Boromir.'

If that the case whats all the later stuff in RotK then around the reforging of Narsil and Elrond having to persuade him to take it? If he is back inline with Book Aragorn why do they keep making changes which play in to the reluctant king arc after FotR, such as him never declaring his lineage and the whole Narsil line?

'theres no resolution here because theres no reluctant king to resolve.'

You mean other than the one the writers and director talk about?

'he isn't reluctant to take Narsil, he actually looked very proud to take it.'

You tried this one before- using this scene as an example of him not being reluctant- when of course he is not in this scene, other than needing persuaded to take it in the first place, because this is the resolution to the reluctant king arc- this is the moment he takes Anduril and accepts kingship.
The very existence of this scene proves the reluctant king arc as it serves no purpose other than it.

'people are mentioned last so theres no emphasis.'

Yes there is there is a change in the subject matter of the sentence from book to film, from being solely on the city to being on the people. Also there is the inclusion of the word 'fail' in the film which is an addition from the book which uses fall. Those two words have very different connotations, especially in the context of a character who believes his race is doomed to fail from inherent weakness. They didn't pick that word by chance nor choose to add the bit about people by chance either.

Theres absolutely no difference between them.- Figg

If there is no difference between them why are they saying different words?

'its been adapted for the screen, it tends to happen.'

No it doesn't, screen writers don't just randomly make up lines, much as I might feel like Boyens co are at times. They didn't just go 'well we could use the dialogue from the book here, but hey look there are loads of words in this dictionary we haven't used at all, lets just chuck some of them randomly in there.
Even Boyens and co make their changes with a purpose- often a shit purpose but its still a purpose.

by Ringdrotten Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:29 pm

Agree to disagree? Laughing

by Elthir Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:58 pm

Agree to disagree?

Not yet. I still think the grey versus white horse issue has some unfathomed depths. Oh... erm.. maybe you were not talking to me. Oops.

For the record (since I'm here already), my opinion of Filmagorn the reluctant?

Yawn.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:04 pm

Agree to disagree?- Ringdrotten

Shocked

And you call yourself a soldier! Mad

No wonder we have that troll problem on the Fjordian border with that sort of non-crabbit attitude Mad

'Filmagorn the reluctant'- Elthir

I'm quoting that now as the official Lore Master position on the reluctant Aragorn matter- which incidental puts you on the wrong side of Mrs Figg- here, you may need to wear this special mithril hat for protection..... and the mithril jock strap for added security. pale

by David H Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:19 pm

Elthir wrote:
Agree to disagree?

Not yet. I still think the grey versus white horse issue has some unfathomed depths.

Lead on!

Adapting Lord of the Rings - Page 14 Tritonia_Lusitania_1935

by Mrs Figg Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:27 am

ARAGORN IS NOT RELUCTANT*cough*

he is bamboozled Rolling Eyes

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:48 pm

Yeah bamboozled into reluctance. Laughing

by Mrs Figg Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:15 pm

by Eldorion Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:03 pm

We talked about Peter Jackson's interview at Exeter College, Oxford a while back, but this is the first time I saw the actual video for it.

He admits that King Kong was badly in need of more editing at about seven minutes in. Razz

He gets asked about the lack of physics in The Hobbit's CGI action scenes and his answer is basically that "well we couldn't do all that during LOTR, but we could now". As if the idea of not making the action scenes so cartoony never even crossed his mind. Thank god for the limitations that were in place during LOTR. "Art from adversity" and all that.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Aug 21, 2015 8:32 pm

Will this just be an hour of pure crabbit inducement Eldo? Suspect