FREEDOM!!!! [3]

No I dont know either. Townsend is just a pretty boy with not much depth, so glad they realized and found Viggo. Mohican guy is too angry and frenetic for Aragorn, just my opinion.

Viggo was a rather introspective take on Aragorn. I don't think it was bad, but I imagined a stronger presence. As a ranger he should seem closer to a taciturn but possibly bad-ass guy you don't want to mess with; as he approaches Gondor he should come to be more of the type of man who quietly dominates the room when he walks in. Both can be done better by Daniel Day Lewis.

Though every time I bring it up it seems like hordes of ravening women with daggers come springing out of the woodwork, Mortensen seemed a bit physically frail to me. Not looking for a Conan type, but I thought the physically intense part Lewis played in Last of the Mohicans would be right if subdued a bit by age and constrained by nobility.

halfwise wrote:Viggo was a rather introspective take on Aragorn.  I don't think it was bad, but I imagined a stronger presence.  As a ranger he should seem closer to a taciturn but possibly bad-ass guy you don't want to mess with; as he approaches Gondor he should come to be more of the type of man who quietly dominates the room when he walks in.  Both can be done better by Daniel Day Lewis.

Though every time I bring it up it seems like hordes of ravening women with daggers come springing out of the woodwork, Mortensen seemed a bit physically frail to me.  Not looking for a Conan type, but I thought the physically intense part Lewis played in Last of the Mohicans would be right if subdued a bit by age and constrained by nobility.

Hordes?    well speaking as a ravening woman maybe women respond more to Viggos non Steven Seagal approach, whereas men like more hacking and top doggery. dunno. Viggo is more quietly romantical. Lewis is too bony for my liking he doesnt look right for Aragorn.

I dont have much feelings either way about Lewis, but I will say from the films I have seen him in he is a superb actor- more than capable of not only changing how he plays roles, but also his physicality in the role.
I am more than sure he would have done a superb job. My Left Foot to Mohicans is quite a range, both in the acting and in the look.

I liked Viggo and felt the actor understood the character far better than the script writers did.
But I so wish he had got the full character to play and not been saddled with that reluctant King cliche to bear him down for three films.

Huh? Viggo is more bony. You can count his ribs clear up to his nipples.

You do have a point about Lewis not really doing quiet romantic, but Viggo swings a bit too far that way to seem the orc-slayer Aragorn is. He would need a dash of the romantic, but not too much. The goblins would eat him alive.

Lewis doesnt have a Tolkienian face.

I think he does.   

I was blown away by the sheer size of those wonderful Kelpies ! They are gracious & look every inch a proud horse. I wouldnt mind something like them down here in the South ! And the scale of the construction ? how everyone knew which part went where ! Beautiful   


I dont think pretty boy Townsend could have cut it as Aragorn at all, He might have the looks but I bet he hasnt got staying power. I imagine a 'Heathcliff' type figure when I think of Aragorn, (hoo, hoo, weeeee !)  

Viggo was pretty badass on Weathertop.   what say you?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont have much feelings either way about Lewis, but I will say from the films I have seen him in he is a superb actor- more than capable of not only changing how he plays roles, but also his physicality in the role.

That's my impression as well, he's a very impressive actor. He would've been a great Strider, and could probably have been a great Aragorn as well. I can't see why not, because as Petty mentioned he's so good at adapting to different roles. I think Viggo Mortensen has become Aragorn for so many that it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role, and I liked him a lot in the role, but that doesn't mean other actors couldn't have done just as well or better.

true. But its not only that I associate Viggo with Aragorn or that Lewis wouldnt have made a great Aragorn, its more the way Viggo 'feels' right in the role, he has the right face, which has nothing to do with handsomeness or not, Viggo just looks Middle Earthish to me whereas Lewis doesnt at all, he can get away with historical parts but not fantasy, he is the wrong type.

Daniel Day Lewis, with Mortensen's build and John Hurt's voice would be my ultimate Aragorn...

Badass at Weathertop eh ? I should say ! DDL may be a great actor, he is but, he doesnt have that earthy mystique about him, he doesnt ooze other worldly magnetism as Viggo..(go go go go to my room!) does. I agree with Figgy, its in his face, his eyes, his smile. Viggo gives it that "Im as old as the time here", he made me believe he was around when the elves first walked in the woods, there's an ethereal quality about him. I dont know if its some sort of confidence ? being scandi-handi ? They do like their Saga's ? (I do to ) ME is ingrained in Viggo as much as the dirt on his hands is.......................... I think I need a lie down, its getting hot in here ! 

thats true. Viggo has an ethereal quality Lewis lacks. Viggo looks at home with Elves.

Stop Norcing my thread with erotic imagery of Viggo!!   

(Talking of which where is Norc? Place just isnt as sweary without her. And for that matter what about Amarie, and is Lance up a mountain yet and has David gone sailing?)

How can the same woman who thinks Scarface in Game of Thrones might be worth risking an adventure with go all dreamy eyed over Viggo? Got nothing against the guy, just can't figure where he keeps that ray gun that melts women indiscriminately like butter in a blowtorch.   

malickfan wrote:Daniel Day Lewis, with Mortensen's build and John Hurt's voice would be my ultimate Aragorn...

hmm. It was mainly Mortensen's build that fell short for me. Too slightly built and wiry. I wanted a more dominant presence without being overbearing. Jonathan Rhys Myers also has the build, but not the acting chops, and not the right face.

I've also realized that the indefinable dreamy quality that attracts women like dung beetles to Mortensen also works wonders in a woman. It's not charisma, which is why I don't imagine it in my Aragorn. It's the appearance that something mysterious is going on inside that head that needs to be pried out which is so sexy. Actually from several accounts Alexander the Great had something of this dreamy quality about him.

From several accounts of Alexander the Great, that quality doesn't just attract women...

Did I not already ban the eroticisation of Viggo on this thread?   

To get back on topic the No campaign seem to have gone mad in recent days.
First they told us a YES vote would be a triumph for the 'forces of darkness' and would lead the world into war and terror.
Today they are telling us that a YES vote will mean starving and murdering third world children, apparently the result if Scotland has its own Aid program. This despite the figures consistently showing per head of population Scotland is more charitable than anywhere else in the UK. That and the whole No message is just getting barmy.

You guys can join America in the thousand years of darkness we've been enduring since Obama was reelected.

  Yep, we're basically a Jihadi-run ghetto backwater ever since his first election.

More nonsense from the No camp-

'THE SNP’s plan to scrap Trident would cast a “dark shadow” over the international reception given to a newly independent Scottish nation, according to a dozen high-ranking defence veterans.
Scotland would be “a new small nation in an uncertain world” in need of allies, but Nato “could hardly be expected to welcome a new member state whose government put in jeopardy the continued operation of the UK independent nuclear deterrent”, Sir Mark said.
“Many, if not most” of the 7,000 staff employed at Faslane and Coulport “would lose their jobs”, he added.'

A few things worth pointing out here-

Firstly the vast majority of NATO members dont have nukes on their soil.

Secondly there aren't 7000 workers at Faslane and Coulport there are 3,500.

Thirdly when the nukes go Faslane and Coulport will not close- they will switch over to a mix of maintaining Scotland's own military vessels (and we have the most coast line in Europe and oil fields to protect so we will need it) and commercial refuelling and resupplying for North Atlantic shipping (including military allies).
Chances are it would create more work as currently Scotland puts in roughly 3.5 billion to UK defence, of which approximately 1.4 billion is actually spent here.

Fourthly there is the example of Spain.
Under the dictatorship of Franco Spain was US friendly and allowed the US to base nukes there.
When Spain became a democracy it demanded the removal of the nukes- which dually happened- and then applied to NATO which was dually accepted.
Here we have an example of a country removing its nuclear power and being given membership of NATO.

And lastly there is location, location, location, as it wont have escaped the brighter minds in NATO that for a North Atlantic treaty Scotland is rather strategically positioned, in the North Atlantic.
Our usefulness to NATO has always been more about where we are than what we are capable of doing.


In my view the YES campaign is growing in momentum and the No falling away.
A huge sign of this are that in almost every town and city in Scotland the notion of the town hall meeting has been revived, there are meetings  all over the place- there have been more public meetings in my town in the last year than in my entire previous lifetime.

And whilst the doom and gloom sound-bites- forces of darkness ect- might get a headline they dont stand up to the town hall scrutiny, and probably explains why the YES vote has slowly, but consistently been gaining ground from the ground up.

As if the No campaign was not contradictory enough its now taken to contradicting itself!

On the subject of Trident the defence Secretary had this to say-

'in the event of a "Yes" vote: "You can't go into any negotiation with things that are non-negotiable".- BBC

What like ruling out a currency union and saying its non-negotiable just as a political scare tactic months before the vote takes place, and long before any negotiations could even begin?

halfwise wrote:

malickfan wrote:Daniel Day Lewis, with Mortensen's build and John Hurt's voice would be my ultimate Aragorn...

hmm.  It was mainly Mortensen's build that fell short for me.  Too slightly built and wiry.  I wanted a more dominant presence without being overbearing.  Jonathan Rhys Myers also has the build, but not the acting chops, and not the right face.  

I've also realized that the indefinable dreamy quality that attracts women like dung beetles to Mortensen also works wonders in a woman.  It's not charisma, which is why I don't imagine it in my Aragorn.  It's the appearance that something mysterious is going on inside that head that needs to be pried out which is so sexy.  Actually from several accounts Alexander the Great had something of this dreamy quality about him.

DUNG BEATLES!!!!!!! How VERY Dare You   

dreamy mysterious thing? you mean subtlety. Viggo looks multi dimensional and layered, he looks complicated and thats wery wery attractive. Just being handsome or macho is boring to most women, ie Scarface is interesting even though he is on the face of it butt ugly, well no I actually find him quite sexy because he is hard to read, capable of extreme casual violence but with biting sarcasm and a capability for protecting the innocent when he choses, which means although he is a thoroughly violent man he is mostly only violent against other violent men, its how he survives his world. He is not just a stock 'baddie' but has complicated layers, like Viggo does.

I'm complicated.