I have always thought "Arwen is dying" is Elronds melodramatical way of saying "Arwen has chose to come back from Gray Havens and will live here and became mortal and slowly diminish her lifepower and I don't like it!" Also her destiny been bound to the Ring is something that's true to all who stay in the Middle-Earth but not so much to the elves who are leaving anyway. So I have thought that hearing that is the reason for Aragon to do all those things since he now know Arwen will stay and he need to save the world for her and maybe get to marry her in the end. That's why he stops also pursuing anything with the "second best option" aka Eowyn. I have no idea if that's how it was meant but it made most sense to me. I also think the changes were big between the book and movie but I just don't think them as totally same story, just similar and both good in their own ways. 🙂
I always thought that Eowyn was the BEST option for Aragorn. She was a formidable shield maiden. She loved Aragorn. A marriage to her would have cemented the ties between Gondor & Rohan. And lastly, she wouldn't have had to give up her immortality to marry Aragorn. Personally, I would not have been able to ask a woman to sacrifice her family, her eternal life, & her destiny in Aman for any reason.
@@raydavison4288 I was really put off by Eowyn ending up with Faramir and not Aragorn when I read the book too. After reading the appendices I like Aragorn and Arwen though, mainly because it parallels Beren and Luthien.
Aragorn leading Eowyn on a little in the movies REALLY bugged me (the cup scene, the dancing scene). As we all know, book Aragorn did no such thing and never would. He was 100% true to and in love with Arwen, and would never court a woman when betrtothed to another. Jackson seriosuly undermined Aragorn's special nobility with that, I thought.
To be entirely fair though I think Jackson's choice to show aragorn flirting with eowyn was not to imply that he was being flippant with arwens love, but to show that it would be so much easier and simpler if he chose a human woman. Espescially one as noble and good as her.. just as it would be easier and would bring much less grief if arwen chose to take the ship to valinor. They both know that their love will lead to great grief and heartache down the road because of their lifespans and separation from family. They will not even be able to reunite in the afterlife since elves and humans have different a afterlife. On the other hand, if they do choose to pursue their love, they will suffer, but they will also create a blessed lineage, much like how the original numrenoreans were created by elf and man blood.
@@angelus823 To be honset I think Jackson did it more to sex it up than to provide a thematic foil for the viewer's appreciation of Aragorn's choice of Arwen. But let's assume that you are right and that was his purpose. It is still something that enligtens only the third-person omniscient viewer. In story, he is still flirting when he shouldn't be, and playing games with Eowyn's heart. Regardless of how those actions may demonstrate some truths about Aragorn to us viewers, they still belittle Arwen and, more importantly, encourage Eowyn to think something could happen with Aragorn when it won't. In the book, every last drop of that was in her head and Aragorn did bupkiss to encourage her. These are not terrible crimes--more than one engaged man has flirted with another woman, although here (in the movie) I saw Aragorn doing somewhat more than flirting and really leading Eowyn on a little, Ashley Wilkes style. But Aragorn is supposed to be a moral and ethical paragon among men. He is that in the books, he is not that in the movies.
@@Vandervecken you misunderstand my point I think. I probably should've elaborated a bit more.. i completely agree with most of what you said. It's not true to aragorns character and I do think it was a bad call on Jackson's part to go the route he did because aragorns virtue is *central* to his story to put it mildly and there is nothing moral about leading eowyn on. I'm not denying any of that.. my only point is that I don't think that Jackson chose to do this to "sex it up" as you put it. I think he really was trying to do what I already stated, and also to create some sort of suspense in the romantic life or aragorn.
I always thought Elrond was being sly by telling Aragon that only a king could marry Arwen, basically going "You cannot marry my daughter, but if you were King than maybe...", all for the purpose of making sure Aragon accepts his lineage and destiny.
A part of the movies that I think you overlook is that Aragorn's opinion of his inheritance changes as his relationship with Boromir grows. I believe, in the movies at least, it is his relationship with Boromir that changes his mind on the weakness / goodness of the men he would govern. The examples that spring to mind, without going back for a rewatch, would be their time in Lorien after Gandalf's fall in Moria (I recall him saying something to the effect that he wished he could do it, see the glory of Gondor restored), and Boromir's death scene (where Aragorn finally calls them "our people" and says he will not let the White City fall).
Yeah but Boromir and Aragorn lived in conflict during the movies. There was nothing between them except some nice moment boromir tried to be nice and Aragorn was there being awkward. If they went from conflict to a newfound camaraderie, then Boromir dies, then yeah I'd see it.
Very nice! In the books Aragorn seems to grow in his leadership after his indecisiveness leads to the breaking of the fellowship. I have often thought that these moments bring a depth to Aragorn's arc as he struggles to find his role following the loss of Gandalf in Moria.
One of my favorite moment's in the book is one you, the reader, did not understand the significance of the first time you read the trilogy. It's the morning that the Fellowship is setting out from Rivendell: "Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant to him." I'm not saying I hate the character of Aragorn in the movies. I don't. But I don't like the changes made to his story arc for many of the same reasons that you went over. For Aragorn, his story arc in the books was the fulfillment of almost 70 years of work on his part and almost 40 years of waiting on the part of he and Arwen as Arwen finally fell in love with him when he was 49. And sitting there that morning, this was it to Aragorn. This was the beginning of the fulfillment of that...or its utter failure. This was the end game of Aragorn's life work. Even in the Fellowship, Aragorn's part was only to accompany Frodo until he and Boromir went to Minas Tirith. It was only after Gandalf fell and leadership of the company came to Aragorn was he going to go to Mordor. And ended up going to Rohan. There was enough self-doubt and conflict there to make his story theatrically interesting. I'll sum up with this. The last time I watched on of the LotR movies was when Return of the King was released to the theaters. The last time I re-read the trilogy was this year. When I think LotR, I don't even think of the movies.
I completely agree with you! Sam Elliott should have played Aragorn, Mortensen should have played Faramir, Michael Hordern should have played Gandalf, Ian Holm should have played Frodo, etc.
@@brovold72 The butchery of Faramir is the reason why I've never bothered to watch the extended edition of The Return of the King. Faramir was the straw that broke this camel's back. I put up with all the changes until then. But I was really, really looking forward to Faramir who is probably my favorite character in the books. And when I saw what Jackson did to Faramir, that was when I couldn't take it anymore. For the first two movies, I watched them in the theater and then watched the extended editions. But for The Return of the King, I was done with the movies when I walked out of the theater and have never seen any of them since.
@@margaretalbrecht4650 "The Window On The West" is one of my favorite chapters in the whole novel as well. It is telling that the defeat of Sauron in the Last Alliance is depicted as a lucky swing that severed the One from its owner's hand, whereas in the book Elendil and Gil-Galad actually overcame Sauron in combat and killed his body, though they themselves perished in the feat. That's pretty awesome. Why cheapen it?
Well, IIRC, the Mouth of Sauron is one of the Black Numenoreans. He's a special kind of evil, and Aragorn would have more than the usual reasons to despise that particular servant of Sauron. I never took that moment to be one of despair, but of wrath and fury. Elessar is furious at being lied to, furious at being taunted, and especially furious at being lied to and taunted by a traitor to Numenor. Imagine an Englishman working for Nazi Germany and acting as Moustache Man's mouthpiece *after Germany won WWII* - that's the level of pure hatred Aragorn could reasonably be expected to have for a Numenorean who willingly chose to serve Sauron, who's basically a demon and is responsible for the downfall of Numenor. Not only did Sauron cause the downfall of Numenor, he also convinced the majority of the Numenorian people to worship Morgoth rather than Illuvatar. Elendil led the last remnants of the faithful Numenoreans when they fled the Doom because his father had been (or at least is implied to have been) captured and slain by the worshipers of Melkor. This isn't just wickedness in the abstract, this is deeply personal. The Mouth knows *exactly* who and what his master is. The arrogance, the narcissism, the smugness, the pride, the spiteful, hateful pleasure The Mouth takes in taunting Gandalf, added on top of the aforementioned treason against Numenor and Illuvatar, would certainly be enough to raise the righteous ire of the Heir of Isildur.
@@earlofbroadst Even with all that, Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron while under a conference truce is utterly out of character. The Aragorn of the book wouldn't have committed a dishonorable act out of rage, no matter how much the feeling was justified.
First of all, let me say I appreciate you and every other youtuber who takes the time to talk about one of my favorite subjects - the Tolkien Legendarium. I get where you are coming from, and I agree that the whole Arwen is dying as a motivational tool for Aragorn is one of the weaker plot-threads in the trilogy. However, I have to otherwise disagree with you in regards to Aragorn's character arc. I think just about everything in the movies that you take issue with stems from two necessary differences between movie and book. 1) is that in the movies EVERYTHING revolves around the Ring. Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens had to first decide how they were going to distill three books down into three movies. They decided, wisely I believe, to focus on the Ring and pretty much discard anything that wasn't directly connected to the Ring. So, virtually every man in the movies, and some non-men, had the conflict of resisting the power of the Ring. As such, Aragorn is first shown doubting the strength of his bloodline in order to set up this inevitable conflict. Isuldur failed to resist the Ring, how can Aragorn do it? This is wonderfully paid off at the end of Fellowship when Aragorn resists the temptation of the Ring and let's Frodo go. 2) Arwen was given a larger role in the story, and they needed to set up an arc for her to justify her being there. Her love being a motivational factor for Aragorn and her pushing Elrond to have Narsil reforged is largely the main reason she is in the story. That is the role they thought of for her. Your argument suggests that Aragorn transitioned from this doubter of his bloodline, not wanting to be king, into the guy that pulls Anduril from its sheath in Return of the King with virtually nothing in between to suggest there has been a transition. I disagree with that assessment. In fact, the transition largely takes place at the end of Fellowship during Boromir's death scene. Boromir calling Aragorn his King does more than complete a great arc for Boromir, it also goes a long way towards completing Aragorn's own arc, which was a passage from indecisive and ambivalent Ranger to Heir of Isuldur. This is shown when Aragorn dons Boromir's ghauntlets and then immediately shows the fortitude to leave Frodo and Sam to their mission in order to pursue the orcs who captured Merry and Pippen. Even though it may not be directly addressed, Aragorn acts more like or is treated like a king in several parts of the The Two Towers. Theoden even reminds Aragorn that he is not King of Rohan, and Aragorn is largely the leader of the defense of Helm's Deep even though he holds no rank to justify that. I don't think Elrond popping in to visit Aragorn was necessarily about motivating Aragorn to be King, even though Elrond presents it that way, I think it was more to present Anduril and motivate Aragorn to take the dark road. Even if it wasn't as important in the book, I think Anduril is important in the movie as a symbol of the King of Gondor. It certainly doesn't have as much impact if Aragorn simply tells the dead that he is Isuldur's heir. It is a much more dramatic reveal when Aragorn brandishes the sword that proves he's Isuldur's heir.
Arwen's life force is leaving her, I assumed, due to the encroaching "Shadow" and her having bound herself to Middle Earth through her vow to Aragorn. Also, deaths of grief are pretty much the only way Tolkien outlines for an elf to die that don't involve grievous bodily injury. And Elrond is gifted with foresight and apparently telepathy, as well (the nonverbal "conversation" he has with Galadriel and Gandalf when they camp near the Redhorn Pass on the way back north after the War.) So it's not a surprise that he could know where Aragorn was at.
In the books, the Elves can die of depression and other very strong negative emotions, but yeah, the movie didn't make any sense about her suddenly "dying"
@@morrowdimtindomiel the way I understand it from the books, the half-elven children of Elrond would either continue on as elves, or if they chose a mortal life, once they eventually died (may be a long time) they would go to the Mortal part of Mando's.
Yes, that's what we learn in the Silmarillion. There is nothing about incantations or spells. It rather appears that they reach a moment when they firmly decide one way or the other. This whole scene just grated me every time I watched it. In fact, every time I watch the movies, I follow it with a full re-reading of the books, just to cleanse my mind.
@@RobSojourn I do not believe that Mandos actually keep spirits of mankind they go beyond the circle of this world and even the undying lands which is why the elves are perplexed about human death. It's a mystery they don't understand. Even Mandos cannot keep a human spirit within Arda
@@benbrown8258 From what I've read in the Silmarillion, both the spirits of men and elves go to Mandos Hall, just different parts. then after quiet contemplation, the elves get re-embodied to live and stay in Arda, and the souls of mortals (men) leave Arda and go elsewhere.
Another great comparison. I remember watching the movies (and listening to the dialog) and thinking: "They didn't say that, someone else did, and it wasn't at this part of the story." This could be another interesting comparison.
This is a good video and you're right about the loss of consistency, however I think movie Aragorn is just a lot more likable than book Aragorn. Strider in Fellowship is fine but I found him so obnoxious in the other volumes.
Why are they all whispering? Peter Jackson was the last guy I was hopping for as a director for this. Bakshi was a lot more faithful to the characters, the plot and the tone of the book. I love his depiction of the Nazguls.
Another weird aspect is Elronds anti-human racism. He thinks "men are weak" because Isildur couldnt cast the ring into the fire. But its almost a certain fact that Elrond himself would not have been able to destroy the ring. As you can tell from Galadriel, elves are clearly tempted by the ring too. In fact Elrond would probably have been an even worse ringlord.
I always took Aragorn's reticence to take on the role of King as not a rejection of his heritage. It seemed more of a confidence and identity issue to me. The change from the book was to make him more of an everyman. Was some of the transition a bit clunky? Yes. It could've been done better because it did kind feel awkward and forced, especially the parts with Elrond and Arwen. However, the point was to see him overcome his issues and embrace his destiny (or doom, if you want to use a more Tolkien-like description).
I interpreted the Arwen dying thing as her becoming mortal and Elrond not being okay with that and Aragon is probably my favourite character from the movies. I will admit though that Theoden thinking that Gondor are a bunch of poopyheads until the beacons are lit is a little weird. He essentially does a complete 180 in a matter on seconds.
Theoden did that 180 because of ego-stroking realization that Gondor directly asked THEM for help. It was him realizing that he is the current keeper of a centuries-old oath between both Kingdoms, since when Cirion, steward of Gondor, gave the region of Eotheod to Eorl and his people, in return for the assistance provided to Gondor against the Balchoth.
@@thestarkknightreturns Man, most of you "Tolkien Fans" love to avoid the truth, LOL! Then why did Theoden doubt Gondor's help? They helped Rohan build the Hornburg.
Yes, this is a Peter Jackson adaptation. In the books Aragorn was a medieval Prince setting his path to return the dead kingdoms from Sauron's grasp. PJ had Aragorn be a man in this time with him searching for his place and learning he has to become King. He was writing where movie heroes were stepping away from macho men who sweep in and save the day with few words and more weapons. There were parts in the movie that didn't make sense with Elrond, Arwen, and Aragorn. In the book Elrond does try to convince Arwen to go West after the fellowship leaves, but Arwen has a dream and tells her father that there is hope because she saw her children. She made her choice. Of course in the books Arwen and her brothers are granted the choice given to her half-elvan father, to go west as an elf or remain as a mortal. Bilbo's poem really set Aragorn up in the book and it could have been in the movie as they established Bilbo as a storyteller and PJ could have presented the poem in part in Bree. I understand that PJ wanted Arwen at Helm's Deep so that might have been why and when Elrond brought the sword to Aragorn. I'm so glad she wasn't there. It wouldn't have been very hard to stress that Aragorn was leader of the Dunedain, and they could have gone south with the flag that Arwen made for Aragorn that was the Flag of Gondor. Then Aragorn could have had the sword reforged in Rivendell. I know it's an adaptation and things must change with different media. But having the extended cut in the making from the beginning, there could have been more clarity with the books.
I have to say I agree with you! Somehow the backstory of Aragorn and Arwen is integral but to put it all together in a movie is impossible. Unless they’d made six movies instead of three.
I agree with your thorough and "overwrought" analysis! And I have a theory on why Jackson and his team went wrong. 1) They wanted to give bigger speaking parts to Arwen and Eowyn. But the romance with Arwen becomes too "Harlequin Romance" for me, personally. And Eowyn feels watered down from the cold steel character we have in the books. 2) They were striving for some sort of profound counterpoint to the Ring's corrupting power. I'm guessing they wanted to say that "all power is corrupting, not just Sauron's Ring." Or something. Alas, it doesn't work.......Just thinking about it more after writing the above, I think I have what they were going for with Aragorn & Arwen: They didn't feel easy with Aragorn's commitment to his family's tradition and his birthright to be king. So in the movie he reluctantly accepts the crown for the sake of the love of a good woman. - Because getting power for the sake of the love of a good woman isn't problematic......I guess.
Again, I am a year late to the party. I noticed a great many of the changes on my first viewing as I had read the books several times by then and am a purist both by inclination and nature. My youngest brother and I discussed my issues at great length, and these ran from inaccurate ages for the hobbits, to other timeline issues, Arwen's role, Elrond's attitude, Elves in Helm's Deep, Aragorn BASE jumping with a warg, Faramír, Denethor, Wormtongue, Saruman, Sauron the Disembodied Eyeball, Treebeard and the Ents, Galadriel's electronic voice and strange coloration, Eomer's alterations, the changes to Radagast, the framing of Sam by Gollum, the death of Denethor, Gandalf wracking Theoden in the head with his staff, and many more. My brother said, accurately if I had "issues" with the movies, then I was going to be...incensed by the changes in the Hobbit series. It has been years since my last watching of these movies and I am as provoked today as I was then.
Sadly, Jackson did Elrond bad service in his interpretation. Unfortunately, he made the movie for the massive majority of movie watchers who will never know Elrond’s age, journey, the tragedy he endured due to the Sons of Fëanor. The mighty Elves he learned from and survived, significance of his House Lineage from Thingol and Melian the Maia to his real skill as a wise man and healer or the personal tragedy’s he has endured facing Sauron. Elrond was one of the greatest, self sacrificing heroes of the story who ended up mirroring Thingol in his impossible ‘bride price’ leading to the bittersweet ending that most authors can only dream of...... The more I think of it, the more disappointed I feel. At least we know the truth and have the books which can’t be taken away.
I've felt the same way with how the movies (all 6) handled female characters. The excuse is that women wanted to see more women. Baloney. Women have been loving the books exactly as they are. We don't need additional characters that water down our favorites.
Depressingly, I think that Hugo Weaving's performance was a lot better in the first Captain America Movie and Infinity War part 1 and 2, then in the lotr trilogy.
The difference being that the purpose of Thingol’s ‘bride prize’ was to ensure Beren would fail, therefore he came up with an impossible task, hoping that either Beren would give up or die trying. Elrond, on the other hand, knew Aragorn’s doom was to ‘either to rise above the height of all your fathers since the days of Elendil, or to fall into darkness with all that is left of your kin’ (The Return Of the King, Appendix A), so he gave Aragorn the task which was already set before him (and which he had been groomed for growing up), regardless of Arwen, hoping that Aragorn, by not losing focus, would prevail and live.
Spot on! Of the problems with the movie over unnecessary changes from the books, the "wussification" of Aragorn, and to Faramir, is the greatest sin. I read an essay (I would link it if I could remember where I was pointed to it by a fellow Tolkien nut) that explains (not excuses) Jackson's changes to these two. It referenced how Hollywood seems to go through phases, where there's stories involving moral archetypes in external conflicts, and those that explore moral ambiguity through internal struggle, which may or may not involve external conflict as well. This is most easily explained, in my thought, as John Wayne westerns (et. al.) vs. Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, or in the tone of most WWII flicks vs. their Vietnam War compatriots. Jackson seems to want to focus on the internal conflicts, and indeed, put internal conflicts into characters that had none apparent...especially (and most faultfully on Jackson's part), Aragorn and Faramir. It was feared by most of us (meaning those who nearly or actually obsess over Tolkien's masterpieces of Middle Earth) that he would get many things right, but absolutely mess up Gollum, because it would be easier to translate the movies, most of us thought, as strictly a fantasy action film. For Gollum, it is ESSENTIAL to portray that inner conflict; he is almost the physical embodiment of that internal conflict narrative, against which to reflect Samwise the Faithful and Frodo the Burdened (and wearing away under that burden, being able to see into and understand Gollum, and feel the fear of becoming like him). Tolkien was masterful at incorporating both techniques, the morally certain heroes and the morally struggling ones, without needing to make it all one or the other. It appears Jackson is better at the latter and unable to leave the former alone. I always thought it important that Aragorn knew his strength of character, and never is it hinted in the books that he was ever tempted by the Ring, not because of his uncertainty of resisting it, but because he knew to take it up was to fail utterly in all his labors. The changing of Faramir too was so dismaying because in the books, I think one of the most important subnarratives is the compare and contrast between Boromir and Faramir. In your new video concerning Eowyn, you reference that Faramir did not love battle or its implements, but only loved that which it defended, Gondor, especially at the height of its splendor, which he hoped to see again. Boromir was more akin to the Rohirrim, a champion and warrior, not a soldier or wise leader. Boromir fell at the test, tempted by the Ring, whereas Faramir, likely more learned about the Ring (despite not knowing it was called Isildur's Bane, only putting it together when Sam let's slip what Frodo carries), lives up to his boast of refusing it, even were it available to him. Why Jackson felt it necessary to change this, and to change Aragorn, whose resolve is an important and positive character trait from the novels is one of the things making its popularity so enduring! Are we not given enough of the moral struggle aspect of the story between Gandalf's refusal, Galadriel's temptation and denial, Saruman's temptation and fall, Boromir's temptation and fall, and Denethor's despair and fall, to see the temptations of power, especially as regards the Ring, without underlining it by changing the main contrasts in the text so as to show them in the same light instead? If the danger of the Ring (and what it symbolizes, power for power's own sake) was insufficiently stressed in Tolkien's works, perhaps this might be understandable, but anyone who has read the books knows it is very well stressed, and indeed, the emphasis of those untempted or who easily refuse the temptation is an important aspect. I think Jackson falls into the same foolishness of Sauron: he does not conceive of anyone wanting to refuse that power when proffered. Failing to see this is a source of Sauron's ultimate defeat, and the flaw in Jackson't interpretation of the work.
I don't disagree all that much with what you say but I don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be. Aragorn's arc was damaged but not ruined. The same is true in varying degrees for Elrond, Arwen, Éowyn (the scene with the stew was cringe-worthy), and Faramir, as well as many other characters in the films. To me, Aragorn came more around to becoming king at various points in the movies, particularly at Boromir's death scene. It could have been done much better but I just don't find it that bad. However, I would have preferred book Aragorn who had long ago accepted who he would strive to become and all that would entail.
Maybe when he claimed he didn't want the power he was kinda lying to himself. He actually was enticed by the idea of being king, but he was so far removed from the realm of gondor and he was afraid of the failures of his ancestors. He was afraid if he sought the power it could corrupt him. Still doesn't quite explain his shift in perspective but it brings thr gap closer together I think
You hit the nail on the head. I have never been able to put my finger on why the coronation of Aragorn at the end of The Return of the King does not quite have the dramatic weight one would expect at that point, but now I know why: your analysis makes it clear it is because the coronation has not been built up in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, and not in the first half of The Return of the King for that matter. I too love the films, but you are right that the loss of dramatic weight is the cost of changing Aragorn's original arc.
A comparison might be made between Thorin in the Hobbit trilogy and book Aragorn as it relates to the medieval view on kingship. They both know who they are and what they want, while movie Aragorn is derived from a more modern view on leadership.
Hi! It´s been a while since I read the books, so I am really thankful for your analysis. May I present a different point of view? In the movie Aragorn did not show Sauron the Narsil because he changed his mind, but because he was looking for something strong to draw Sauron's attention from Frodo. He did not decide to became king, he went to the war to die. Screaming "Elendil" in fight and no will to became king... If you try to see Aragorn as a real person and not just like book character, you find more aspect of this personality. He can be alternately disgusted and enchanted by being Isildur's heir, he can change his mind, he can even value one ancestor than another. In real world this is normal. What I appreciate about movie Aragorn is character development. The book Aragorn trying to became king all the time to earn Arwen for all the time... It allways seemed to me as story for 10y boys. Heroic for him, absolutely passive for her (or maybe I hate it just because I'm girl, I admitt :D).
It’s true book Aragorn has little character development, but if you think about it that’s natural. He’s already 87 years old with a purpose and a sense of destiny. Most people in that position aren’t likely to change much lol. I can see where you’re coming from, otherwise, but to me it still feels forced an unnatural. Remember, he gets Anduril WELL before he decides to show it to Sauron specifically in response to the problem Gandalf just laid out, namely that Mordor was teeming with Orcs. Yet he seemed to embrace getting the sword and his destiny at the earlier point. Why?
@@TolkienLorePodcast Thanks for answer! Great point about the age, although I guess 87 years in our world is slightly different from 87 when you know you can live another 122, when you still have strong body and when you are constantly forced to be flexible because you are in war. Regarding the time between getting Anduril and showing it to Sauron, to me it seems that he was simply busy saving Minas Tirith. He had two days to convince the dead army to fight, to win over corsairs and to get to Minas Tirith, I don't think there was time to wonder whether he would like to be king or not. And I guess the process of accepting his destiny correlates with getting closer to Gondor and gondor's people's problems. It's different when you hear the bad news and when you live the bad news. And I think meeting Theoden also did it's job, because there were few moments when Aragorn saw Theoden's decisions and though that he would do it better. But it's just my opinion.
there are certain things that aren't necessary to show specifically. for instance it's safe to assume that most if not all (mortal) characters are afraid of death. similarly, a lot of movie Aragorn's impulses and motivations don't necessarily need to be spelled out. one is the pull to power that everyone feels (made most clear in the pull of the ring). Aragorn's desire for power makes sense, and it makes sense that his dismissal of power is how he keeps that in check. moments where he relishes the sword etc occur when he logically can and must allow himself that indulgence. I usually agree with your positions but I have a number of counters to this video and am somewhat interested in responding point by point as you often do, however I don't think I have the time at the moment. in any case, love the videos and keep them coming!
I think that Arwen being tied to the fate of the ring is referring to what she did in fellowship when she saved Frodo. She says something to the effect that whatever gift she had was shared to Frodo. I always got the impression that there was a missing scene that was either cut or not filmed.
There was a dual purpose to the whole 'claim the name for this one thing'. A lie performed convincingly enough, for long enough, tends to become truth. By the time all was cleared up, he was comfortable in the role. Well played, Elrond. :)
Sorry unrelated to the video but I was wondering if there were in your opinion a good sequence to read Tolkien’s books. I want to read about all of middle earth but don’t know what books to read in which order. Thank you
It depends. If you really love reading for its own sake or dig archaic writing styles and want to read everything in chronological order, you could read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and then Lord of the Rings. However, I think you’re probably better off reading Hobbit, LOTR, then Silmarillion.
@@noahshepherd9842 I don't know why, but I found reading Silmarillion before Lord of the Rings very difficult. I tried listening to it in English audiobook and I was kind of lost. Now that I've read LOTR it's pretty easy. I recieved a hard cover copy of Silmarillion translated in my native language, with a map of Beleriand and a section at the end containing explanations of all names of people, places and events, as well as genealogies, which really helped me keep up with the story. Truly amazing book.
I took some film theory and production in school and understand scripting and the requirements of film. That said I agree about Aaragorn and his hero's journey. I'll submit that Rohan is no vassal state. It's obligation and duty of long standing that bonds them together. Modern people have difficulty understanding this sort of thing. Galadriel is referencing seeing through the destruction of the ring being a supreme achievement that eclipses Aaragorn's ancestors. Always fun to ponder this material, thanks!
Coming veeeery late to this video... and you make many good points, and in such detail as I hadn't even thought about it yet. I think connected to Aragorn's weird character arc in the movies is also the fact that the Kingdom of Arnor doesn't really exist or at least it is never mentioned, and as a result the question is WHY Aragorn and his ancestors are in exile while the stewards govern Gondor. This is not directly connected to Aragorn's personal arc per se, but it makes his general situation even stranger. Boromir may say that Gondor doesn't have a king and doesn't need one, but there is never an explanation to why that is. It's not prominent in the books either, but at least it's possible to understand it there. In the movies, not so much.
I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings when I was young. Read them many times over and written papers on Tolkien's work. So I was a big book fan. I like both the movies and books. Each are good we even if changes are made. So I don't to hink anything is ruined.
Yes, but it was Glorfindel who met with them and eased his pain, and Elrond was the one who healed him. Frodo never met Aren personally until she arrived to Minas Tirith after the war ended.
This may be an unpopular opinion here but I find PJ's Aragorn the more compelling character. The character arc of the hesitant heir to Gondor raised by elves who doubts the nobility and honor of Men inspired by the people of Rohan and the life and death of Boromir has a change in perspective towards the goodness of Man and takes the throne out of necessity makes for a much more interesting character than a man who is king by birth and is destined to rule Gondor as long as he lives to claim it. There's no real character development as Tolkien wrote him, which is perfectly fine if done well and I'd argue it was done fantastically, but for a film trilogy I think it would make for a bland character.
That’s true as far as it goes. The problem is that the character arc PJ gave him doesn’t actually make sense, and from an adaptation perspective it turns Aragorn into a primary rather than a secondary character at the expense of, say, Merry and Pippin.
I think Arwen ended up tied to the Ring because she passed her right to the undying lands on to Frodo after he was stabbed. She faded because he still bore the Ring, until Frodo was freed from the Ring she was doomed. It's a side effect of eliminating Glorfindel from the rescue after Frodo was stabbed on Weathertop.
Your the GOAT my dude, my opinion is that PJ made Aragorn’s character the way he did because watching a movie with an ego driven Aragorn would definitely take away from the epicness that is the film trilogy. That being said, I feel like they went away with Aragorn’s arc at the end of the fellowship because there is so much content to put in the films they couldn’t really fit it in. Anyways your the best love the videos even though sometimes I disagree with you.
You are right, there was a lot of content they could've put in the films, but instead of doing taht, they decided to add scenes which were not in the books and that really bugged me, especially in TTT.
I know I'm late... I think one of the goals of Jackson & Co was to go for a more 'realistic approach' - as opposed to the 'Grand Tale' presented in the books. Thus for Aragorn, the 'real' - doubting - conflicted man - seeing Narsil reforged brought home the fact that his lineage is not just a thing of the distant past but an actual reality; and therefore the duties that come with it are just as real. He picks up Elendil's (and Isildur's) mantle at that point, when the sword is in his hand. At least that's how I've always interpreted it. That is not to say there aren't any problems with the movies, but that part (regardless of preripheral circumstances) always felt plausible to me.
I agree. These points bugged me in the movies maybe not as much as the changes to Faramir, which had me raging, but I did feel as Aragorn was being portrayed as way too indecisive. Their relationship was never in question in the book and Elrond fully supported Aragorn. Elrond comes off as more than a bit petty especially considering the fact that he has spent over 1000 years protecting Isildur’s line waiting for the moment that the King would be restored.
I suppose a lot of the differences between the books and films is down to try to make a trilogy of successful box office movies which would be viewed by an audience who have probably not read the books .
Whenever I see the scene at 4:58 I can’t stop thinking about Richard Steven Horvitz and Rikki Simmons’ reading their lines as ZiM and GIR. “The same blood flows in my veins LIKE RADIOACTIVE RUBBER PANTS!” ~ ZiM
Now the thing is, in the book, it doesn't make sense that Aragorn carries the shards of Narsil with him, because... wouldn't he want a working sword? And not want to lose the shards before they are reforged? And why hasn't anyone reforged them up to this point? There's a lot of decisions there that seem like they could have been done better!
Although this comment isn't directly concerned about the differences between film & book Aragorn, one of the things I loved about the tale of Aragorn & Arwen is the comparison between their love & the story of Beren & Luthien. I wish this could have been more emphasised in the films & it could have been included as it is made explicit in the tale of Aragorn & Arwen in Appendix A "I see said Aragorn that I have turned my eyes to a treasure no less dear than the treasure of Thingol that Beren once desired. Such is my fate." Where Beren had to retrieve a Silmaril, which Thingol does deliberately to kill him, Elrond in setting him the task of becoming King of Gondor & Arnor is telling Aragorn, who has just discovered his heritage, that he must take it up to wed Arwen. and this is also made clear from the discussion from which I extracted the above quote. It makes me think that the Elrond of the book has more in common with Thingol on this matter than he has with the Elrond of the film
Speaking of Jackson ruining characters. One of my biggest issues with the Jackson films is what he did to Eowyn. At the Pelennor Fields in the films she is portrayed as scared and unsure of herself when I always perceived her as having almost no fear and being ready to fight to her death. I think she should have been portrayed as more of a proud warrior than a woman who has no idea what she is doing being sent into a battle. That's just my opinion though.
Yeah. She looks panicky in the movies, whereas in the book: Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. ‘But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.’ .... But the helm of her secrecy, had fallen from her, and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy’s eyes.
While I don't like the way Jackson handled Aragorn I believe the turn around was when he led the ghost host. His leadership was not as a commander but as King and for the first time he liked it. It is clear in the movie that this is the turning point. The whole love triangle thing was a mess from the start and should never have been used. Kind of a King of Thrones thing.
I don't understand the need as a story-teller to make Aragorn (or Faramir, or any of the Númenoreans or Noldor for that matter) "relatable" in a story that is being told from the perspective of HOBBITS.
There are a lot of possible reasons why Peter Jackson may have decided this. For one screenwriting a movie is very different to writing a book. Something's translate well from book to screen and others may not. While the book was told from the point of view of the hobbits (and Gimli if I remember correctly) the movie obviously wanted to show more than that so we got to see more of some characters than before. Would the original book characters of Aragorn and Elrond have translated well from book to screen, I guess we'll never find out. But the books came out in the mid 50s, and the movies came out in the early 2000s. Jackson may have thought that Aragorn would have come across as too arrogant. He also might have thought that it seemed strange that Elrond was okay with the descendent of the guy who was corrupted by the ring, was marrying his daughter (or at least those that hadn't read the book would be confused by that).
@@brovold72 Fair enough. Yes I suppose they do follow a more typical movie structure than the books do. I do agree on the changes to Faramir. He is completely different to what he is in the book, but Aragorn and Elrond never bothered me too much. Of course it's very insightful with videos, and comment sections, like these which explain why some people dislike them. One of my least favorite changes was the Army of the Dead instead of The Grey Company. I used to love the scene where Aragorn Legolas and Gimli jumped off the boat, with the ghost army following them, that is until I read the book (I did see the movies first, before reading the book, so maybe I'm more accepting of some changes than others), now I wish we had The Grey Company therefore Men are responsible for the victory at Pelennor, rather than CGI ghost army exmachina. My least favourite change though is how Arnor is never mentioned by name, and Isildur is credited as the "last king" of Gondor, rather than Earnur. Anarion is also not mentioned, and the scenes with Gil Galad were removed from the final film. But yeah there are some things I prefer from the book and some from the movie. It's also interesting hearing other peoples opinions on this in comment sections such as these.
@@gandalf3236 I would categorize much of it as "missed opportunity" -- the promise of the first film was so tremendous: great setting and sets and music and art design and casting. *sigh*
@@brovold72 Yeah there are a few missed opportunities about these films, but overall they are still some of my favourite movies of all time, even if in some areas they aren't faithful to the book, or could have been even better. However if you don't like them, then I respect your opinion
In the movie they had quite a bit changed Arwen's situation, they assume that each elf has their specific time to leave Middle Earth, so if Arwen misses her moment she cannot go later and therefore is transformed... into what is not clear, human? weakening elf? neither of these are logical because Elrond has just told her that she will remain until the world ends, alone, which is indeed a cruel fate, but totally not true. We know that by choosing Aragorn she will become human and will share his human fate after death, therefore not be separated from him. So yeah, trying to introduce this new dramatic twist into the original story makes no sense. But what emotion though.... :) most viewers love it for that and don't think much about the rest.
I mean the reason Elrond didn’t make her marrying a human and give up her “ immortality “ is because his brother Elros did no? And became the first king of numenor? Someone please correct or Clarifying if I’m wrong
I think at the beginning the change of portrayal for Aragorn comes from the beginning when Isildur is too very different from the books. Isildur is never corrupted by the Ring in the books but he is in the movies. And from there Aragorn fears his legacy and his human weakness.
Isildur’s story is a bit unclear. I think if all you had was LOTR you’d think he was corrupted, but adding in the Akallabeth and Unfinished Tales stuff he looks more like some who fell victim to the power of the Ring briefly but then realized his mistake.
@@TolkienLorePodcast the scene in Mount Doom with Elrond makes him look like he has fully turned and it seems that he is killed in the way back from the war. It makes me a little bit sad knowing he tried for years to bend the Ring before getting killed on his way to Elrond
Agree. Agree. Agree. I feel the same way on every point! I was also disappointed that Faramir ended up as a whiny lesser Boromir. Faramir is one of my favorite characters. He should have been a lot more like Elendil.
I don't know if you read comment form your older videos, but in my opinion what the film nailed well of Aragorn's character it his strider side. About his heir of Gondor side I agrre most of that you said, but in my opininon he pursuing his duty as become king and destroy Sauron was not only based on that he wanted to prove himselft to his future father-in-law, but but his education (like he was told constntly from young age who is he, how important his legacy and duty to Middle-Earth is). In my reading even after the victory over Sauron he wasn't 100% sure he wuld succed in this wish to earn Arwen's hand until he found the sprout of the White Tree with Gandalf. The movie simplified his character so his evoultion would happen entirely in the films. In the books his personel already established, ther is a little change to it ine the events. His doubts mostly comes from that his resolve and duty being challenged, when he try to choose the right thing even it's hinders his overall quest to become king.
I know this is an older video, but had to comment as I despise what they did to Aragorn, turning him from franchement the most inspirational character in LOTR (alongside Sam & Theoden in my view), into the self-doubting weakling he is in the movies. I say weakling deliberately, as he doubts and hees and haws about how he doesn't wish for power, but in the book while it is established that he doesn't want pouvoir he is however keen to take the throne to use what power it has to protect others and shield them from the wickedness of the world. He is much more of an Arthurian, or Davidic style of King. Aragorn is a man who knows his duty, and does it. Now that said there are still some good scenes in the movies but even those ones are not quite as good as those from the book.
Elrond is being a bit of a dick about trying to dissuade Arwen from marrying Aragorn. Given that Elrond himself is a great-grandson of Beren and Luthien; bears the title Elrond Half-Elven; and is Aragorn's great-great-great-(insert many more greats here)-uncle; he above all others must know how the union of Elf and Man can be fulfilling.
Many forget, too, he is also the grandson of Tuor and Idril, daughter of Turgon. Thus he is the product of two unions of men and elves, and has the blood of Teleri, Noldor, and through Turgon's father, Fingolfin, Vanyar elf as well (Finwe remarried after the death of his wife when Feanor was born, and she was Vanya, so that Fingolfin and his heirs had Vanya in them. That's how Galadriel, daughter of Finsarfin, comes by the golden hair, not the dark hair typical of the Noldor). That being said, the unions of Tuor and Idril and of Beren and Luthien were followed by tragedy unforeseen and unsought. Idril's marriage to Tuor and refusal of her cousin Maeglin is in part what motivated Maeglin's betrayal of Gondolin. More importantly, Thingol's pride and refusal of Beren's suitorship of Luthien, unless he recovered a Silmaril, entangles Doriath into the curse of Mandos, leading to the downfall of Doriath, the flight of Melian, and the death of Dior, Thingol's heir. Knowing these things, Elrond is reluctant, since while he was a product of such unions, he also knew the grief they could bring (including the capture of himself and brother Elros when the sons of Feanor assaulted the Falas). So he gave reluctant leave, knowing that resisting, as Thingol did, was unwise, but that unless it was to reunite houses with his twin's heir and restore the high kingship of men, that he would part with his daughter forever for no less cause. Aragorn, also knowing these things, understood that, and went out into the world to achieve this goal, and had not the ill will to his proposed father-in-law that Beren must have borne, and left no reason for Arwen to be bitter to her father and to flee Rivendell, to her peril. Elrond chose wisely with little certainty and much grief before him. He could no more repent of his choice than Arwen later could, or the heirs of his brother (which led to the folly and downfall of Numenor). Indeed, alas! for Elrond! Beren and Luthien had passed forever from the world, the ultimate fates of Tuor and Idril unknown, his father forever bound to sail the skies and his mother with Earendil, and all his children remained in Middle Earth after he passed west, abiding the Gift of Men, to be removed from the circles of Arda that he had chosen to remain bound to. Only with his wife could he hope to reunite in Aman, and bring to her the certainly grievous news that she would see her children no more. Truly all outcomes of the War of the Ring could only be grievous to him, and only with little comfort at success. Yet he too passed the test, and by his generosity and grief was Gondor and the heirs of Numenor restored.
Around 29:50. A few things changed for Aragorn by that scene. He took control of the army of the dead, defeated the fleet at Pelargir and won the battle of Pelennor. I think any one would get some confidence from any of those acts. Imagine the 3 of them in the period of a few days. So I do not agree at all at that point
I did. I suspect this was intentional so the unsavvy movie goer wouldn’t be confused due to the lack of a tale of years showing all the subsequent kings descended from Isildur’s brother lol
Yeah that makes sense, but I think a short recap of the tale of Earnur would have been a great way to introduce the Witch King as a menacing character while staying true to the book.
I think Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron was the worst character assassination they could have done to him. Aragorn would never have done that in a million years, even if the ambassador was an orc, much less a human being. It would raise questions about his temperament and suitability to even be the king, and Gandalf wouldve sharply rebuked him.
I thought "the same weakness" was vulnerability to the One Ring: the Ring amplifies and therefore depends upon the tendency to command others. Hobbits are the epitome of humble common folk, which is what gives them the best resistance. So it's precisely because Aragorn is a king by right and by nature that he can't do what's needed to restore the kingship.
Aragorn in the movies is conflicted. He thinks his lineage is cool, but since Isildur fucked up he is afraid he's gonna fuck up too. He thinks himself lesser than them and doesn't feel worthy. At the end of the trilogy he has grown a bit and winning the war gave him the confidence.
I feel in the films aragorn does want the position but is afraid of the faliour, but he changes views without much reason to break the fear. I get where they were going and how it helps the story tention for the films but 1. It could have been exicuted better and 2. It seeks to diminish the true nature of aragorn and his story which I'm sure has been going on much before his entailment with the hobbit and the ring
The way your decor is hung bothers me. The spacing looks odd and the heights. IDK what you can do about the swords as they all rest at different heights in their holders
Yeah they’re a bit off. Super difficult to hang straight. But you won’t be seeing them for a while because I’ve moved so no worries. ;) Once I get a permanent studio I’ll make sure to get them hung properly.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, The Noble Collection no longer carries LOTR swords - only The Hobbit swords. So they are limited to Sting, Glamdring, and Orcrist. But I have another supplier in mind.
Yeah the films changed all the main characters in ways that just... they're not even really adaptations of LotR, they're just vaguely LotR inspired films!
I think Peter Jackson was also sloppy in telling the audience why Aragorn's insight into the Ring was useful. Legolas announces to the Council, Boromir, and the audience, that Strider the Ranger is Aragorn son of Arathorn and Boromir owes him his allegiance. If the viewer didn't know why the form of his name was so important, they wouldn't know why Boromir, son of the Steward of Gondor should owe his allegiance to a mere Ranger of the North.
In the books, Arwen never had that big of a role. Except for a few passages. They tried to make the story more romantic, to it's downfall. Maybe it's harsh, but that's my opinion.
I think you might be misremembering one of the details from Appendix A. You say that Aragorn was still at a fairly early age when Elrond issued the condition that he must the the king of the reunited kingdoms before he could wed Arwen. But this actually happened in T.A. 2980, after Aragorn and Arwen betrothed themselves to each other. He was already 49 years old--"grown to full stature of body and mind". I do agree with the main thrust of your essay. When I developed a timeline for gaming in the movie continuity I hand-waved a lot of these issues the films create regarding Aragorn, but I was aware of them. I also ended up assigning movie-Aragorn a birth-year of 2915.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Yes, that's still well before the War of the Ring, even if we can arguably move the years of the war to as early as 3001-3002 in the films. By my best reckoning, Aragorn in Peter Jackson's film series turned 49 years old in about the year 2964.
There is allusions in the book that Aragorn is showing himself as Elendils heir to Sauron via the palantir in Helms Deep after the defeat of Saruman and that this kinda new bad news to the big S.
As I recall (it's been a while), Aragorn shows himself to Sauron to make Sauron think Aragorn must have the One Ring in order to be so bold. Pretty much everything Aragorn does throughout Book 5 is to continue to bluff Sauron into believing that's where the Ring is and keep him from looking for it elsewhere. It's not news to Sauron that Isildur's heir is running around causing trouble; it is news that he's become confident enough to challenge Sauron directly rather than remaining in the shadows.
Well that’s Gandalf’s strategy more than Aragorn’s. Aragorn actually implies that Sauron doesn’t know about him when he tells Legolas and Gimli that to know he lived would be a blow to Sauron’s heart.
@@TolkienLorePodcast The decision to reveal himself in the Palantir was definitely Aragorn's alone - and, yes, checking the passage, Aragorn says outright that Sauron didn't yet know about Aragorn (despite his having declared himself openly in Edoras).
Excellent points. When it comes to the reluctant warrior, the concept appears oxymoronic to me. As the teacher Kreia once said, speaking of Ajunta Paul's meeting with Lord Revan, it's a betrayal of the self to turn on one self when you're well past the precipice. A form of spiritual collapse, something few recover from. In theory, we can all appreciate the redemptive effects of becoming a victim of the evil that has befallen us, but in practice? Nay. In order to go to war, one has to accept that you can be killed. You might kill elders, women, and children, but also that all your loved ones back home can be killed. One step further - there are far worse things to occur in war than death alone. Of torture and rape of infinite variation and scale, there're no limitations. A warrior require the will to accept the sanguinary reality of war for what it is. To be reluctant is antithetical to the vigour, courage, and aggressiveness expected of a warrior. To be reluctant is inauthentic for a warrior. Like an open marriage. Like closeted gays who have jet to accept reality. Like a scholar who spends life in an ivory tower, but never gets blood, sweat, nor dirt under his fingernails. It's a betrayal of the self to not fully integrate the self with reality. Cowards, unconsciously masquerading fear as kindness. The reluctant type know full well it's fear that grips them. Name a warrior protagonist who embraced all that war had to offer, in the sportsmanlike sense of Xenophons journey into Persia, without self pity. Canderous or Sgt. Todd 3465 came close, but broke down at the end.
You say there is no reason for him to be king in the movie, but he needed to be king, or at least accept his role "to be king" to get the army of the dead to follow him.
27:54 Peter Jackson feminism = a woman cannot be a good warrior and a good housewife 🤢 Tolkien feminism = a woman can be a good warrior and then choose to be a healer ❤
The LotR movies really aren't that great. They take a lot of liberties with the source material, removing some of the soul and polish that made LotR be in fact LotR. And additionally, the second two really had a lot of silly action scenes. The comic relief is also really bad. Of course they do have a high production value and a lot of dramatic moments. So they are very great fantasy movies, in a genre that really has a lot of trash. But a great LotR retelling in movie form? No Way. BTW, I thought that Aragon was completely miscasted. He looked like a scoundrel.
The butchery of the characters of Aragorn, Faramir, and Treebeard, and the grotesque transformation of Gimli into comic relief made the movies completely worthless as far as I am concerned. I watched them once when they first came out, and will never set eyes on them again.
I have always thought "Arwen is dying" is Elronds melodramatical way of saying "Arwen has chose to come back from Gray Havens and will live here and became mortal and slowly diminish her lifepower and I don't like it!" Also her destiny been bound to the Ring is something that's true to all who stay in the Middle-Earth but not so much to the elves who are leaving anyway. So I have thought that hearing that is the reason for Aragon to do all those things since he now know Arwen will stay and he need to save the world for her and maybe get to marry her in the end. That's why he stops also pursuing anything with the "second best option" aka Eowyn.
I have no idea if that's how it was meant but it made most sense to me.
I also think the changes were big between the book and movie but I just don't think them as totally same story, just similar and both good in their own ways. 🙂
I always thought that Eowyn was the BEST option for Aragorn. She was a formidable shield maiden. She loved Aragorn. A marriage to her would have cemented the ties between Gondor & Rohan. And lastly, she wouldn't have had to give up her immortality to marry Aragorn. Personally, I would not have been able to ask a woman to sacrifice her family, her eternal life, & her destiny in Aman for any reason.
@@raydavison4288 I was really put off by Eowyn ending up with Faramir and not Aragorn when I read the book too. After reading the appendices I like Aragorn and Arwen though, mainly because it parallels Beren and Luthien.
I thought this too. That 'her fate is tied to the Ring' meant that if Sauron wins, she dies...like everyone else, except the Elves who left.
@@Ocrilat Of course, if her fate were literally "tied to the Ring" the destruction of the Ring would be rather problematic for her.
@@HeatherAllen That's what I'm saying...in response to the people who are thinking Elrond meant that literally lol.
Aragorn leading Eowyn on a little in the movies REALLY bugged me (the cup scene, the dancing scene). As we all know, book Aragorn did no such thing and never would. He was 100% true to and in love with Arwen, and would never court a woman when betrtothed to another. Jackson seriosuly undermined Aragorn's special nobility with that, I thought.
To be entirely fair though I think Jackson's choice to show aragorn flirting with eowyn was not to imply that he was being flippant with arwens love, but to show that it would be so much easier and simpler if he chose a human woman. Espescially one as noble and good as her.. just as it would be easier and would bring much less grief if arwen chose to take the ship to valinor. They both know that their love will lead to great grief and heartache down the road because of their lifespans and separation from family.
They will not even be able to reunite in the afterlife since elves and humans have different a afterlife.
On the other hand, if they do choose to pursue their love, they will suffer, but they will also create a blessed lineage, much like how the original numrenoreans were created by elf and man blood.
@@angelus823 To be honset I think Jackson did it more to sex it up than to provide a thematic foil for the viewer's appreciation of Aragorn's choice of Arwen. But let's assume that you are right and that was his purpose. It is still something that enligtens only the third-person omniscient viewer. In story, he is still flirting when he shouldn't be, and playing games with Eowyn's heart. Regardless of how those actions may demonstrate some truths about Aragorn to us viewers, they still belittle Arwen and, more importantly, encourage Eowyn to think something could happen with Aragorn when it won't. In the book, every last drop of that was in her head and Aragorn did bupkiss to encourage her. These are not terrible crimes--more than one engaged man has flirted with another woman, although here (in the movie) I saw Aragorn doing somewhat more than flirting and really leading Eowyn on a little, Ashley Wilkes style. But Aragorn is supposed to be a moral and ethical paragon among men. He is that in the books, he is not that in the movies.
@@Vandervecken you misunderstand my point I think. I probably should've elaborated a bit more.. i completely agree with most of what you said. It's not true to aragorns character and I do think it was a bad call on Jackson's part to go the route he did because aragorns virtue is *central* to his story to put it mildly and there is nothing moral about leading eowyn on. I'm not denying any of that.. my only point is that I don't think that Jackson chose to do this to "sex it up" as you put it.
I think he really was trying to do what I already stated, and also to create some sort of suspense in the romantic life or aragorn.
Well I'm glad then. Aragorn is a damn fine fellow. Far better than a whole lot of kings of Numenor, that's for sure.
@@Vandervecken no argument here
I always thought Elrond was being sly by telling Aragon that only a king could marry Arwen, basically going "You cannot marry my daughter, but if you were King than maybe...", all for the purpose of making sure Aragon accepts his lineage and destiny.
I always interpreted Boromir's death as the moment Aragorn chose to embrace his destiny as the king of Gondor in the movies.
A part of the movies that I think you overlook is that Aragorn's opinion of his inheritance changes as his relationship with Boromir grows. I believe, in the movies at least, it is his relationship with Boromir that changes his mind on the weakness / goodness of the men he would govern.
The examples that spring to mind, without going back for a rewatch, would be their time in Lorien after Gandalf's fall in Moria (I recall him saying something to the effect that he wished he could do it, see the glory of Gondor restored), and Boromir's death scene (where Aragorn finally calls them "our people" and says he will not let the White City fall).
Yeah but Boromir and Aragorn lived in conflict during the movies. There was nothing between them except some nice moment boromir tried to be nice and Aragorn was there being awkward. If they went from conflict to a newfound camaraderie, then Boromir dies, then yeah I'd see it.
Very nice! In the books Aragorn seems to grow in his leadership after his indecisiveness leads to the breaking of the fellowship. I have often thought that these moments bring a depth to Aragorn's arc as he struggles to find his role following the loss of Gandalf in Moria.
One of my favorite moment's in the book is one you, the reader, did not understand the significance of the first time you read the trilogy. It's the morning that the Fellowship is setting out from Rivendell:
"Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant to him."
I'm not saying I hate the character of Aragorn in the movies. I don't. But I don't like the changes made to his story arc for many of the same reasons that you went over.
For Aragorn, his story arc in the books was the fulfillment of almost 70 years of work on his part and almost 40 years of waiting on the part of he and Arwen as Arwen finally fell in love with him when he was 49. And sitting there that morning, this was it to Aragorn. This was the beginning of the fulfillment of that...or its utter failure. This was the end game of Aragorn's life work.
Even in the Fellowship, Aragorn's part was only to accompany Frodo until he and Boromir went to Minas Tirith. It was only after Gandalf fell and leadership of the company came to Aragorn was he going to go to Mordor. And ended up going to Rohan. There was enough self-doubt and conflict there to make his story theatrically interesting.
I'll sum up with this. The last time I watched on of the LotR movies was when Return of the King was released to the theaters. The last time I re-read the trilogy was this year. When I think LotR, I don't even think of the movies.
I completely agree with you! Sam Elliott should have played Aragorn, Mortensen should have played Faramir, Michael Hordern should have played Gandalf, Ian Holm should have played Frodo, etc.
Exact same boat. I think I came very close to not even going to the third film, so bewildered and dismayed was I at the treatment of Faramir.
@@brovold72 The butchery of Faramir is the reason why I've never bothered to watch the extended edition of The Return of the King. Faramir was the straw that broke this camel's back. I put up with all the changes until then. But I was really, really looking forward to Faramir who is probably my favorite character in the books. And when I saw what Jackson did to Faramir, that was when I couldn't take it anymore.
For the first two movies, I watched them in the theater and then watched the extended editions. But for The Return of the King, I was done with the movies when I walked out of the theater and have never seen any of them since.
@@margaretalbrecht4650 🛎
@@margaretalbrecht4650 "The Window On The West" is one of my favorite chapters in the whole novel as well. It is telling that the defeat of Sauron in the Last Alliance is depicted as a lucky swing that severed the One from its owner's hand, whereas in the book Elendil and Gil-Galad actually overcame Sauron in combat and killed his body, though they themselves perished in the feat. That's pretty awesome. Why cheapen it?
Here you missed, that Aragorn was not hateful or weak...he would not have despaired and killed the Mouth of Sauron (my opinion)
Well, IIRC, the Mouth of Sauron is one of the Black Numenoreans. He's a special kind of evil, and Aragorn would have more than the usual reasons to despise that particular servant of Sauron. I never took that moment to be one of despair, but of wrath and fury. Elessar is furious at being lied to, furious at being taunted, and especially furious at being lied to and taunted by a traitor to Numenor. Imagine an Englishman working for Nazi Germany and acting as Moustache Man's mouthpiece *after Germany won WWII* - that's the level of pure hatred Aragorn could reasonably be expected to have for a Numenorean who willingly chose to serve Sauron, who's basically a demon and is responsible for the downfall of Numenor. Not only did Sauron cause the downfall of Numenor, he also convinced the majority of the Numenorian people to worship Morgoth rather than Illuvatar. Elendil led the last remnants of the faithful Numenoreans when they fled the Doom because his father had been (or at least is implied to have been) captured and slain by the worshipers of Melkor. This isn't just wickedness in the abstract, this is deeply personal. The Mouth knows *exactly* who and what his master is. The arrogance, the narcissism, the smugness, the pride, the spiteful, hateful pleasure The Mouth takes in taunting Gandalf, added on top of the aforementioned treason against Numenor and Illuvatar, would certainly be enough to raise the righteous ire of the Heir of Isildur.
@@earlofbroadst Even with all that, Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron while under a conference truce is utterly out of character. The Aragorn of the book wouldn't have committed a dishonorable act out of rage, no matter how much the feeling was justified.
Yes, that scene was awful.
First of all, let me say I appreciate you and every other youtuber who takes the time to talk about one of my favorite subjects - the Tolkien Legendarium.
I get where you are coming from, and I agree that the whole Arwen is dying as a motivational tool for Aragorn is one of the weaker plot-threads in the trilogy. However, I have to otherwise disagree with you in regards to Aragorn's character arc.
I think just about everything in the movies that you take issue with stems from two necessary differences between movie and book. 1) is that in the movies EVERYTHING revolves around the Ring. Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens had to first decide how they were going to distill three books down into three movies. They decided, wisely I believe, to focus on the Ring and pretty much discard anything that wasn't directly connected to the Ring. So, virtually every man in the movies, and some non-men, had the conflict of resisting the power of the Ring. As such, Aragorn is first shown doubting the strength of his bloodline in order to set up this inevitable conflict. Isuldur failed to resist the Ring, how can Aragorn do it? This is wonderfully paid off at the end of Fellowship when Aragorn resists the temptation of the Ring and let's Frodo go.
2) Arwen was given a larger role in the story, and they needed to set up an arc for her to justify her being there. Her love being a motivational factor for Aragorn and her pushing Elrond to have Narsil reforged is largely the main reason she is in the story. That is the role they thought of for her.
Your argument suggests that Aragorn transitioned from this doubter of his bloodline, not wanting to be king, into the guy that pulls Anduril from its sheath in Return of the King with virtually nothing in between to suggest there has been a transition. I disagree with that assessment. In fact, the transition largely takes place at the end of Fellowship during Boromir's death scene. Boromir calling Aragorn his King does more than complete a great arc for Boromir, it also goes a long way towards completing Aragorn's own arc, which was a passage from indecisive and ambivalent Ranger to Heir of Isuldur. This is shown when Aragorn dons Boromir's ghauntlets and then immediately shows the fortitude to leave Frodo and Sam to their mission in order to pursue the orcs who captured Merry and Pippen.
Even though it may not be directly addressed, Aragorn acts more like or is treated like a king in several parts of the The Two Towers. Theoden even reminds Aragorn that he is not King of Rohan, and Aragorn is largely the leader of the defense of Helm's Deep even though he holds no rank to justify that.
I don't think Elrond popping in to visit Aragorn was necessarily about motivating Aragorn to be King, even though Elrond presents it that way, I think it was more to present Anduril and motivate Aragorn to take the dark road. Even if it wasn't as important in the book, I think Anduril is important in the movie as a symbol of the King of Gondor. It certainly doesn't have as much impact if Aragorn simply tells the dead that he is Isuldur's heir. It is a much more dramatic reveal when Aragorn brandishes the sword that proves he's Isuldur's heir.
YES!!!!! During the whole video I was like, "b-b-but B-Boromir's death scene". I get it tho, it's not largely stated so it's easy to overlook.
Agreed
This 👌
Thanks for your counterpoints!
My take may be a hot one, but I’ve been in a similar situation. He is tempted, but he never indulges himself. He doesn’t want to hurt her.
Arwen's life force is leaving her, I assumed, due to the encroaching "Shadow" and her having bound herself to Middle Earth through her vow to Aragorn. Also, deaths of grief are pretty much the only way Tolkien outlines for an elf to die that don't involve grievous bodily injury.
And Elrond is gifted with foresight and apparently telepathy, as well (the nonverbal "conversation" he has with Galadriel and Gandalf when they camp near the Redhorn Pass on the way back north after the War.) So it's not a surprise that he could know where Aragorn was at.
In the books, the Elves can die of depression and other very strong negative emotions, but yeah, the movie didn't make any sense about her suddenly "dying"
I agree. It's like they are suggesting she recited some incantation to remove her immortality.
@@morrowdimtindomiel the way I understand it from the books, the half-elven children of Elrond would either continue on as elves, or if they chose a mortal life, once they eventually died (may be a long time) they would go to the Mortal part of Mando's.
Yes, that's what we learn in the Silmarillion. There is nothing about incantations or spells. It rather appears that they reach a moment when they firmly decide one way or the other. This whole scene just grated me every time I watched it. In fact, every time I watch the movies, I follow it with a full re-reading of the books, just to cleanse my mind.
@@RobSojourn I do not believe that Mandos actually keep spirits of mankind they go beyond the circle of this world and even the undying lands which is why the elves are perplexed about human death. It's a mystery they don't understand. Even Mandos cannot keep a human spirit within Arda
@@benbrown8258 From what I've read in the Silmarillion, both the spirits of men and elves go to Mandos Hall, just different parts. then after quiet contemplation, the elves get re-embodied to live and stay in Arda, and the souls of mortals (men) leave Arda and go elsewhere.
How Sauron could have won according to the movie:
Aragorn: "I don't want this power"
Elrond: "Understandable, have a nice day"
Another great comparison. I remember watching the movies (and listening to the dialog) and thinking: "They didn't say that, someone else did, and it wasn't at this part of the story."
This could be another interesting comparison.
Really good analysis!
The villification of Isildur is the root problem from which the Aragorn arc is poisoned.
"Arwen is dying" is Elrond being melodramatic again. She is dying because she has made her choice to stay in Middle Earth with Aragorn.
This is a good video and you're right about the loss of consistency, however I think movie Aragorn is just a lot more likable than book Aragorn.
Strider in Fellowship is fine but I found him so obnoxious in the other volumes.
Why are they all whispering? Peter Jackson was the last guy I was hopping for as a director for this. Bakshi was a lot more faithful to the characters, the plot and the tone of the book. I love his depiction of the Nazguls.
Another weird aspect is Elronds anti-human racism. He thinks "men are weak" because Isildur couldnt cast the ring into the fire. But its almost a certain fact that Elrond himself would not have been able to destroy the ring. As you can tell from Galadriel, elves are clearly tempted by the ring too. In fact Elrond would probably have been an even worse ringlord.
And since Elrond is a half elf that chose to be an elf it wouldn’t make sense for him to be racist towards his ancestors.
I always took Aragorn's reticence to take on the role of King as not a rejection of his heritage. It seemed more of a confidence and identity issue to me. The change from the book was to make him more of an everyman. Was some of the transition a bit clunky? Yes. It could've been done better because it did kind feel awkward and forced, especially the parts with Elrond and Arwen. However, the point was to see him overcome his issues and embrace his destiny (or doom, if you want to use a more Tolkien-like description).
I love how straight forward you tackle these complex concepts about literature. Well done!
I interpreted the Arwen dying thing as her becoming mortal and Elrond not being okay with that and Aragon is probably my favourite character from the movies. I will admit though that Theoden thinking that Gondor are a bunch of poopyheads until the beacons are lit is a little weird. He essentially does a complete 180 in a matter on seconds.
Theoden did that 180 because of ego-stroking realization that Gondor directly asked THEM for help. It was him realizing that he is the current keeper of a centuries-old oath between both Kingdoms, since when Cirion, steward of Gondor, gave the region of Eotheod to Eorl and his people, in return for the assistance provided to Gondor against the Balchoth.
@@thestarkknightreturns Man, most of you "Tolkien Fans" love to avoid the truth, LOL!
Then why did Theoden doubt Gondor's help? They helped Rohan build the Hornburg.
Correction: Gondor built the Hornburg before the Rohirrim even came south.
Yes, this is a Peter Jackson adaptation. In the books Aragorn was a medieval Prince setting his path to return the dead kingdoms from Sauron's grasp. PJ had Aragorn be a man in this time with him searching for his place and learning he has to become King. He was writing where movie heroes were stepping away from macho men who sweep in and save the day with few words and more weapons.
There were parts in the movie that didn't make sense with Elrond, Arwen, and Aragorn. In the book Elrond does try to convince Arwen to go West after the fellowship leaves, but Arwen has a dream and tells her father that there is hope because she saw her children. She made her choice. Of course in the books Arwen and her brothers are granted the choice given to her half-elvan father, to go west as an elf or remain as a mortal. Bilbo's poem really set Aragorn up in the book and it could have been in the movie as they established Bilbo as a storyteller and PJ could have presented the poem in part in Bree.
I understand that PJ wanted Arwen at Helm's Deep so that might have been why and when Elrond brought the sword to Aragorn. I'm so glad she wasn't there. It wouldn't have been very hard to stress that Aragorn was leader of the Dunedain, and they could have gone south with the flag that Arwen made for Aragorn that was the Flag of Gondor. Then Aragorn could have had the sword reforged in Rivendell.
I know it's an adaptation and things must change with different media. But having the extended cut in the making from the beginning, there could have been more clarity with the books.
I have to say I agree with you! Somehow the backstory of Aragorn and Arwen is integral but to put it all together in a movie is impossible. Unless they’d made six movies instead of three.
Imagine. *sigh*
I agree with your thorough and "overwrought" analysis! And I have a theory on why Jackson and his team went wrong. 1) They wanted to give bigger speaking parts to Arwen and Eowyn. But the romance with Arwen becomes too "Harlequin Romance" for me, personally. And Eowyn feels watered down from the cold steel character we have in the books. 2) They were striving for some sort of profound counterpoint to the Ring's corrupting power. I'm guessing they wanted to say that "all power is corrupting, not just Sauron's Ring." Or something. Alas, it doesn't work.......Just thinking about it more after writing the above, I think I have what they were going for with Aragorn & Arwen: They didn't feel easy with Aragorn's commitment to his family's tradition and his birthright to be king. So in the movie he reluctantly accepts the crown for the sake of the love of a good woman. - Because getting power for the sake of the love of a good woman isn't problematic......I guess.
Again, I am a year late to the party.
I noticed a great many of the changes on my first viewing as I had read the books several times by then and am a purist both by inclination and nature. My youngest brother and I discussed my issues at great length, and these ran from inaccurate ages for the hobbits, to other timeline issues, Arwen's role, Elrond's attitude, Elves in Helm's Deep, Aragorn BASE jumping with a warg, Faramír, Denethor, Wormtongue, Saruman, Sauron the Disembodied Eyeball, Treebeard and the Ents, Galadriel's electronic voice and strange coloration, Eomer's alterations, the changes to Radagast, the framing of Sam by Gollum, the death of Denethor, Gandalf wracking Theoden in the head with his staff, and many more. My brother said, accurately if I had "issues" with the movies, then I was going to be...incensed by the changes in the Hobbit series. It has been years since my last watching of these movies and I am as provoked today as I was then.
Sadly, Jackson did Elrond bad service in his interpretation. Unfortunately, he made the movie for the massive majority of movie watchers who will never know Elrond’s age, journey, the tragedy he endured due to the Sons of Fëanor. The mighty Elves he learned from and survived, significance of his House Lineage from Thingol and Melian the Maia to his real skill as a wise man and healer or the personal tragedy’s he has endured facing Sauron.
Elrond was one of the greatest, self sacrificing heroes of the story who ended up mirroring Thingol in his impossible ‘bride price’ leading to the bittersweet ending that most authors can only dream of......
The more I think of it, the more disappointed I feel.
At least we know the truth and have the books which can’t be taken away.
I've felt the same way with how the movies (all 6) handled female characters. The excuse is that women wanted to see more women. Baloney. Women have been loving the books exactly as they are. We don't need additional characters that water down our favorites.
Depressingly, I think that Hugo Weaving's performance was a lot better in the first Captain America Movie and Infinity War part 1 and 2, then in the lotr trilogy.
The difference being that the purpose of Thingol’s ‘bride prize’ was to ensure Beren would fail, therefore he came up with an impossible task, hoping that either Beren would give up or die trying. Elrond, on the other hand, knew Aragorn’s doom was to ‘either to rise above the height of all your fathers since the days of Elendil, or to fall into darkness with all that is left of your kin’ (The Return Of the King, Appendix A), so he gave Aragorn the task which was already set before him (and which he had been groomed for growing up), regardless of Arwen, hoping that Aragorn, by not losing focus, would prevail and live.
Spot on!
Of the problems with the movie over unnecessary changes from the books, the "wussification" of Aragorn, and to Faramir, is the greatest sin.
I read an essay (I would link it if I could remember where I was pointed to it by a fellow Tolkien nut) that explains (not excuses) Jackson's changes to these two. It referenced how Hollywood seems to go through phases, where there's stories involving moral archetypes in external conflicts, and those that explore moral ambiguity through internal struggle, which may or may not involve external conflict as well. This is most easily explained, in my thought, as John Wayne westerns (et. al.) vs. Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, or in the tone of most WWII flicks vs. their Vietnam War compatriots. Jackson seems to want to focus on the internal conflicts, and indeed, put internal conflicts into characters that had none apparent...especially (and most faultfully on Jackson's part), Aragorn and Faramir.
It was feared by most of us (meaning those who nearly or actually obsess over Tolkien's masterpieces of Middle Earth) that he would get many things right, but absolutely mess up Gollum, because it would be easier to translate the movies, most of us thought, as strictly a fantasy action film. For Gollum, it is ESSENTIAL to portray that inner conflict; he is almost the physical embodiment of that internal conflict narrative, against which to reflect Samwise the Faithful and Frodo the Burdened (and wearing away under that burden, being able to see into and understand Gollum, and feel the fear of becoming like him). Tolkien was masterful at incorporating both techniques, the morally certain heroes and the morally struggling ones, without needing to make it all one or the other. It appears Jackson is better at the latter and unable to leave the former alone.
I always thought it important that Aragorn knew his strength of character, and never is it hinted in the books that he was ever tempted by the Ring, not because of his uncertainty of resisting it, but because he knew to take it up was to fail utterly in all his labors. The changing of Faramir too was so dismaying because in the books, I think one of the most important subnarratives is the compare and contrast between Boromir and Faramir. In your new video concerning Eowyn, you reference that Faramir did not love battle or its implements, but only loved that which it defended, Gondor, especially at the height of its splendor, which he hoped to see again. Boromir was more akin to the Rohirrim, a champion and warrior, not a soldier or wise leader. Boromir fell at the test, tempted by the Ring, whereas Faramir, likely more learned about the Ring (despite not knowing it was called Isildur's Bane, only putting it together when Sam let's slip what Frodo carries), lives up to his boast of refusing it, even were it available to him. Why Jackson felt it necessary to change this, and to change Aragorn, whose resolve is an important and positive character trait from the novels is one of the things making its popularity so enduring!
Are we not given enough of the moral struggle aspect of the story between Gandalf's refusal, Galadriel's temptation and denial, Saruman's temptation and fall, Boromir's temptation and fall, and Denethor's despair and fall, to see the temptations of power, especially as regards the Ring, without underlining it by changing the main contrasts in the text so as to show them in the same light instead? If the danger of the Ring (and what it symbolizes, power for power's own sake) was insufficiently stressed in Tolkien's works, perhaps this might be understandable, but anyone who has read the books knows it is very well stressed, and indeed, the emphasis of those untempted or who easily refuse the temptation is an important aspect. I think Jackson falls into the same foolishness of Sauron: he does not conceive of anyone wanting to refuse that power when proffered. Failing to see this is a source of Sauron's ultimate defeat, and the flaw in Jackson't interpretation of the work.
I don't disagree all that much with what you say but I don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be. Aragorn's arc was damaged but not ruined. The same is true in varying degrees for Elrond, Arwen, Éowyn (the scene with the stew was cringe-worthy), and Faramir, as well as many other characters in the films. To me, Aragorn came more around to becoming king at various points in the movies, particularly at Boromir's death scene. It could have been done much better but I just don't find it that bad. However, I would have preferred book Aragorn who had long ago accepted who he would strive to become and all that would entail.
Maybe when he claimed he didn't want the power he was kinda lying to himself. He actually was enticed by the idea of being king, but he was so far removed from the realm of gondor and he was afraid of the failures of his ancestors. He was afraid if he sought the power it could corrupt him. Still doesn't quite explain his shift in perspective but it brings thr gap closer together I think
You hit the nail on the head. I have never been able to put my finger on why the coronation of Aragorn at the end of The Return of the King does not quite have the dramatic weight one would expect at that point, but now I know why: your analysis makes it clear it is because the coronation has not been built up in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, and not in the first half of The Return of the King for that matter. I too love the films, but you are right that the loss of dramatic weight is the cost of changing Aragorn's original arc.
A comparison might be made between Thorin in the Hobbit trilogy and book Aragorn as it relates to the medieval view on kingship. They both know who they are and what they want, while movie Aragorn is derived from a more modern view on leadership.
Hi! It´s been a while since I read the books, so I am really thankful for your analysis.
May I present a different point of view?
In the movie Aragorn did not show Sauron the Narsil because he changed his mind, but because he was looking for something strong to draw Sauron's attention from Frodo. He did not decide to became king, he went to the war to die.
Screaming "Elendil" in fight and no will to became king... If you try to see Aragorn as a real person and not just like book character, you find more aspect of this personality. He can be alternately disgusted and enchanted by being Isildur's heir, he can change his mind, he can even value one ancestor than another. In real world this is normal.
What I appreciate about movie Aragorn is character development. The book Aragorn trying to became king all the time to earn Arwen for all the time... It allways seemed to me as story for 10y boys. Heroic for him, absolutely passive for her (or maybe I hate it just because I'm girl, I admitt :D).
It’s true book Aragorn has little character development, but if you think about it that’s natural. He’s already 87 years old with a purpose and a sense of destiny. Most people in that position aren’t likely to change much lol. I can see where you’re coming from, otherwise, but to me it still feels forced an unnatural. Remember, he gets Anduril WELL before he decides to show it to Sauron specifically in response to the problem Gandalf just laid out, namely that Mordor was teeming with Orcs. Yet he seemed to embrace getting the sword and his destiny at the earlier point. Why?
@@TolkienLorePodcast Thanks for answer!
Great point about the age, although I guess 87 years in our world is slightly different from 87 when you know you can live another 122, when you still have strong body and when you are constantly forced to be flexible because you are in war.
Regarding the time between getting Anduril and showing it to Sauron, to me it seems that he was simply busy saving Minas Tirith. He had two days to convince the dead army to fight, to win over corsairs and to get to Minas Tirith, I don't think there was time to wonder whether he would like to be king or not.
And I guess the process of accepting his destiny correlates with getting closer to Gondor and gondor's people's problems. It's different when you hear the bad news and when you live the bad news. And I think meeting Theoden also did it's job, because there were few moments when Aragorn saw Theoden's decisions and though that he would do it better. But it's just my opinion.
there are certain things that aren't necessary to show specifically. for instance it's safe to assume that most if not all (mortal) characters are afraid of death. similarly, a lot of movie Aragorn's impulses and motivations don't necessarily need to be spelled out. one is the pull to power that everyone feels (made most clear in the pull of the ring). Aragorn's desire for power makes sense, and it makes sense that his dismissal of power is how he keeps that in check. moments where he relishes the sword etc occur when he logically can and must allow himself that indulgence.
I usually agree with your positions but I have a number of counters to this video and am somewhat interested in responding point by point as you often do, however I don't think I have the time at the moment. in any case, love the videos and keep them coming!
Well I’m all ears if you change your mind!
I think that Arwen being tied to the fate of the ring is referring to what she did in fellowship when she saved Frodo. She says something to the effect that whatever gift she had was shared to Frodo. I always got the impression that there was a missing scene that was either cut or not filmed.
There was a dual purpose to the whole 'claim the name for this one thing'. A lie performed convincingly enough, for long enough, tends to become truth. By the time all was cleared up, he was comfortable in the role. Well played, Elrond. :)
Sorry unrelated to the video but I was wondering if there were in your opinion a good sequence to read Tolkien’s books. I want to read about all of middle earth but don’t know what books to read in which order. Thank you
It depends. If you really love reading for its own sake or dig archaic writing styles and want to read everything in chronological order, you could read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and then Lord of the Rings. However, I think you’re probably better off reading Hobbit, LOTR, then Silmarillion.
Great and should I read unfinished tales after?
Yeah, I’d do that after the other three, because it’s mostly extra stuff about those Big Three.
Great thank you so much!
@@noahshepherd9842 I don't know why, but I found reading Silmarillion before Lord of the Rings very difficult. I tried listening to it in English audiobook and I was kind of lost. Now that I've read LOTR it's pretty easy. I recieved a hard cover copy of Silmarillion translated in my native language, with a map of Beleriand and a section at the end containing explanations of all names of people, places and events, as well as genealogies, which really helped me keep up with the story. Truly amazing book.
I took some film theory and production in school and understand scripting and the requirements of film. That said I agree about Aaragorn and his hero's journey. I'll submit that Rohan is no vassal state. It's obligation and duty of long standing that bonds them together. Modern people have difficulty understanding this sort of thing. Galadriel is referencing seeing through the destruction of the ring being a supreme achievement that eclipses Aaragorn's ancestors.
Always fun to ponder this material, thanks!
Coming veeeery late to this video... and you make many good points, and in such detail as I hadn't even thought about it yet.
I think connected to Aragorn's weird character arc in the movies is also the fact that the Kingdom of Arnor doesn't really exist or at least it is never mentioned, and as a result the question is WHY Aragorn and his ancestors are in exile while the stewards govern Gondor. This is not directly connected to Aragorn's personal arc per se, but it makes his general situation even stranger. Boromir may say that Gondor doesn't have a king and doesn't need one, but there is never an explanation to why that is. It's not prominent in the books either, but at least it's possible to understand it there. In the movies, not so much.
You have done a very good analysis of the character in the movie. Enjoy your video.
I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings when I was young. Read them many times over and written papers on Tolkien's work. So I was a big book fan. I like both the movies and books. Each are good we even if changes are made. So I don't to hink anything is ruined.
I thought Arwen gave up her immortality when she saved Frodo in the woods from succumbing to the ringwraiths' poison.
You could argue that but it’s clear she’s contemplating a mortal life by her marriage to Aragorn from the scene where she gives him her necklace.
Also if she gave it up for Frodo she couldn’t have even tried to take ship in Two Towers.
Yes, but it was Glorfindel who met with them and eased his pain, and Elrond was the one who healed him. Frodo never met Aren personally until she arrived to Minas Tirith after the war ended.
This may be an unpopular opinion here but I find PJ's Aragorn the more compelling character. The character arc of the hesitant heir to Gondor raised by elves who doubts the nobility and honor of Men inspired by the people of Rohan and the life and death of Boromir has a change in perspective towards the goodness of Man and takes the throne out of necessity makes for a much more interesting character than a man who is king by birth and is destined to rule Gondor as long as he lives to claim it. There's no real character development as Tolkien wrote him, which is perfectly fine if done well and I'd argue it was done fantastically, but for a film trilogy I think it would make for a bland character.
That’s true as far as it goes. The problem is that the character arc PJ gave him doesn’t actually make sense, and from an adaptation perspective it turns Aragorn into a primary rather than a secondary character at the expense of, say, Merry and Pippin.
I think Arwen ended up tied to the Ring because she passed her right to the undying lands on to Frodo after he was stabbed. She faded because he still bore the Ring, until Frodo was freed from the Ring she was doomed. It's a side effect of eliminating Glorfindel from the rescue after Frodo was stabbed on Weathertop.
Your the GOAT my dude, my opinion is that PJ made Aragorn’s character the way he did because watching a movie with an ego driven Aragorn would definitely take away from the epicness that is the film trilogy. That being said, I feel like they went away with Aragorn’s arc at the end of the fellowship because there is so much content to put in the films they couldn’t really fit it in. Anyways your the best love the videos even though sometimes I disagree with you.
You are right, there was a lot of content they could've put in the films, but instead of doing taht, they decided to add scenes which were not in the books and that really bugged me, especially in TTT.
I know I'm late... I think one of the goals of Jackson & Co was to go for a more 'realistic approach' - as opposed to the 'Grand Tale' presented in the books. Thus for Aragorn, the 'real' - doubting - conflicted man - seeing Narsil reforged brought home the fact that his lineage is not just a thing of the distant past but an actual reality; and therefore the duties that come with it are just as real. He picks up Elendil's (and Isildur's) mantle at that point, when the sword is in his hand. At least that's how I've always interpreted it. That is not to say there aren't any problems with the movies, but that part (regardless of preripheral circumstances) always felt plausible to me.
What about his other scenes with Boromir?
Guess I should have gone through some of those, but ultimately I don’t think they change much.
I agree. These points bugged me in the movies maybe not as much as the changes to Faramir, which had me raging, but I did feel as Aragorn was being portrayed as way too indecisive. Their relationship was never in question in the book and Elrond fully supported Aragorn. Elrond comes off as more than a bit petty especially considering the fact that he has spent over 1000 years protecting Isildur’s line waiting for the moment that the King would be restored.
I suppose a lot of the differences between the books and films is down to try to make a trilogy of successful box office movies which would be viewed by an audience who have probably not read the books .
That is sadly true.
They could have gone with this was Aragorn's quest to be able to marry Arwen.
Whenever I see the scene at 4:58 I can’t stop thinking about Richard Steven Horvitz and Rikki Simmons’ reading their lines as ZiM and GIR.
“The same blood flows in my veins LIKE RADIOACTIVE RUBBER PANTS!” ~ ZiM
Now the thing is, in the book, it doesn't make sense that Aragorn carries the shards of Narsil with him, because... wouldn't he want a working sword? And not want to lose the shards before they are reforged? And why hasn't anyone reforged them up to this point?
There's a lot of decisions there that seem like they could have been done better!
I really enjoyed the films but I have to agree with your analysis.
Although this comment isn't directly concerned about the differences between film & book Aragorn, one of the things I loved about the tale of Aragorn & Arwen is the comparison between their love & the story of Beren & Luthien. I wish this could have been more emphasised in the films & it could have been included as it is made explicit in the tale of Aragorn & Arwen in Appendix A "I see said Aragorn that I have turned my eyes to a treasure no less dear than the treasure of Thingol that Beren once desired. Such is my fate." Where Beren had to retrieve a Silmaril, which Thingol does deliberately to kill him, Elrond in setting him the task of becoming King of Gondor & Arnor is telling Aragorn, who has just discovered his heritage, that he must take it up to wed Arwen. and this is also made clear from the discussion from which I extracted the above quote. It makes me think that the Elrond of the book has more in common with Thingol on this matter than he has with the Elrond of the film
Speaking of Jackson ruining characters. One of my biggest issues with the Jackson films is what he did to Eowyn. At the Pelennor Fields in the films she is portrayed as scared and unsure of herself when I always perceived her as having almost no fear and being ready to fight to her death. I think she should have been portrayed as more of a proud warrior than a woman who has no idea what she is doing being sent into a battle. That's just my opinion though.
Yeah. She looks panicky in the movies, whereas in the book:
Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. ‘But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.’
.... But the helm of her secrecy, had fallen from her, and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy’s eyes.
His arc in the movies always bugged me a bit. Thank you for the vid :)
I did not like Aragorn as portrayed in Ralph Bakshi's animated version of LOTRs.
Not to offend anyone with a nostalgic attachment to that film, but it's strictly riffing material. Ale helps, too.
While I don't like the way Jackson handled Aragorn I believe the turn around was when he led the ghost host. His leadership was not as a commander but as King and for the first time he liked it. It is clear in the movie that this is the turning point. The whole love triangle thing was a mess from the start and should never have been used. Kind of a King of Thrones thing.
I don't understand the need as a story-teller to make Aragorn (or Faramir, or any of the Númenoreans or Noldor for that matter) "relatable" in a story that is being told from the perspective of HOBBITS.
There are a lot of possible reasons why Peter Jackson may have decided this. For one screenwriting a movie is very different to writing a book. Something's translate well from book to screen and others may not. While the book was told from the point of view of the hobbits (and Gimli if I remember correctly) the movie obviously wanted to show more than that so we got to see more of some characters than before. Would the original book characters of Aragorn and Elrond have translated well from book to screen, I guess we'll never find out. But the books came out in the mid 50s, and the movies came out in the early 2000s. Jackson may have thought that Aragorn would have come across as too arrogant. He also might have thought that it seemed strange that Elrond was okay with the descendent of the guy who was corrupted by the ring, was marrying his daughter (or at least those that hadn't read the book would be confused by that).
@@gandalf3236 Those movies were made by people who've seen too many movies.
@@brovold72 Fair enough. Yes I suppose they do follow a more typical movie structure than the books do. I do agree on the changes to Faramir. He is completely different to what he is in the book, but Aragorn and Elrond never bothered me too much. Of course it's very insightful with videos, and comment sections, like these which explain why some people dislike them. One of my least favorite changes was the Army of the Dead instead of The Grey Company. I used to love the scene where Aragorn Legolas and Gimli jumped off the boat, with the ghost army following them, that is until I read the book (I did see the movies first, before reading the book, so maybe I'm more accepting of some changes than others), now I wish we had The Grey Company therefore Men are responsible for the victory at Pelennor, rather than CGI ghost army exmachina. My least favourite change though is how Arnor is never mentioned by name, and Isildur is credited as the "last king" of Gondor, rather than Earnur. Anarion is also not mentioned, and the scenes with Gil Galad were removed from the final film. But yeah there are some things I prefer from the book and some from the movie. It's also interesting hearing other peoples opinions on this in comment sections such as these.
@@gandalf3236 I would categorize much of it as "missed opportunity" -- the promise of the first film was so tremendous: great setting and sets and music and art design and casting. *sigh*
@@brovold72 Yeah there are a few missed opportunities about these films, but overall they are still some of my favourite movies of all time, even if in some areas they aren't faithful to the book, or could have been even better. However if you don't like them, then I respect your opinion
have you done a lecture about Prince Imrahil?
I have not, but Men of the West just released one!
In the movie they had quite a bit changed Arwen's situation, they assume that each elf has their specific time to leave Middle Earth, so if Arwen misses her moment she cannot go later and therefore is transformed... into what is not clear, human? weakening elf? neither of these are logical because Elrond has just told her that she will remain until the world ends, alone, which is indeed a cruel fate, but totally not true. We know that by choosing Aragorn she will become human and will share his human fate after death, therefore not be separated from him. So yeah, trying to introduce this new dramatic twist into the original story makes no sense. But what emotion though.... :) most viewers love it for that and don't think much about the rest.
I mean the reason Elrond didn’t make her marrying a human and give up her “ immortality “ is because his brother Elros did no? And became the first king of numenor? Someone please correct or Clarifying if I’m wrong
I think at the beginning the change of portrayal for Aragorn comes from the beginning when Isildur is too very different from the books. Isildur is never corrupted by the Ring in the books but he is in the movies. And from there Aragorn fears his legacy and his human weakness.
Isildur’s story is a bit unclear. I think if all you had was LOTR you’d think he was corrupted, but adding in the Akallabeth and Unfinished Tales stuff he looks more like some who fell victim to the power of the Ring briefly but then realized his mistake.
@@TolkienLorePodcast the scene in Mount Doom with Elrond makes him look like he has fully turned and it seems that he is killed in the way back from the war. It makes me a little bit sad knowing he tried for years to bend the Ring before getting killed on his way to Elrond
Agree. Agree. Agree. I feel the same way on every point!
I was also disappointed that Faramir ended up as a whiny lesser Boromir. Faramir is one of my favorite characters. He should have been a lot more like Elendil.
I agree, also! I picture Viggo Mortensen as Faramir, Sam Elliot as Aragorn, Micheal Hordern as Gandalf, Ian Holm as Frodo, etc!
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 Viggo Mortensen was perfect as Aragorn! >:(
3:08 Can this have something to do with the fact that Tolkien had some admiration for Franco, and PJ most certainly hadn't?
Now to something completely different: Where do I get this lovely red Prancing Pony cupboard?
It’s a dart board. Pretty sure it came from The Noble Collection.
@ thanks. A pity that the production seems to be discontinued since I can’t find it online anymore.
To be fair, the non-self-assured Aragorn was all in the craze if you looked at trends in cinema at the time.
I don't know if you read comment form your older videos, but in my opinion what the film nailed well of Aragorn's character it his strider side.
About his heir of Gondor side I agrre most of that you said, but in my opininon he pursuing his duty as become king and destroy Sauron was not only based on that he wanted to prove himselft to his future father-in-law, but but his education (like he was told constntly from young age who is he, how important his legacy and duty to Middle-Earth is).
In my reading even after the victory over Sauron he wasn't 100% sure he wuld succed in this wish to earn Arwen's hand until he found the sprout of the White Tree with Gandalf.
The movie simplified his character so his evoultion would happen entirely in the films.
In the books his personel already established, ther is a little change to it ine the events. His doubts mostly comes from that his resolve and duty being challenged, when he try to choose the right thing even it's hinders his overall quest to become king.
I do read comments on older videos. ;)
I know this is an older video, but had to comment as I despise what they did to Aragorn, turning him from franchement the most inspirational character in LOTR (alongside Sam & Theoden in my view), into the self-doubting weakling he is in the movies. I say weakling deliberately, as he doubts and hees and haws about how he doesn't wish for power, but in the book while it is established that he doesn't want pouvoir he is however keen to take the throne to use what power it has to protect others and shield them from the wickedness of the world. He is much more of an Arthurian, or Davidic style of King.
Aragorn is a man who knows his duty, and does it. Now that said there are still some good scenes in the movies but even those ones are not quite as good as those from the book.
Elrond is being a bit of a dick about trying to dissuade Arwen from marrying Aragorn. Given that Elrond himself is a great-grandson of Beren and Luthien; bears the title Elrond Half-Elven; and is Aragorn's great-great-great-(insert many more greats here)-uncle; he above all others must know how the union of Elf and Man can be fulfilling.
Many forget, too, he is also the grandson of Tuor and Idril, daughter of Turgon. Thus he is the product of two unions of men and elves, and has the blood of Teleri, Noldor, and through Turgon's father, Fingolfin, Vanyar elf as well (Finwe remarried after the death of his wife when Feanor was born, and she was Vanya, so that Fingolfin and his heirs had Vanya in them. That's how Galadriel, daughter of Finsarfin, comes by the golden hair, not the dark hair typical of the Noldor).
That being said, the unions of Tuor and Idril and of Beren and Luthien were followed by tragedy unforeseen and unsought. Idril's marriage to Tuor and refusal of her cousin Maeglin is in part what motivated Maeglin's betrayal of Gondolin. More importantly, Thingol's pride and refusal of Beren's suitorship of Luthien, unless he recovered a Silmaril, entangles Doriath into the curse of Mandos, leading to the downfall of Doriath, the flight of Melian, and the death of Dior, Thingol's heir. Knowing these things, Elrond is reluctant, since while he was a product of such unions, he also knew the grief they could bring (including the capture of himself and brother Elros when the sons of Feanor assaulted the Falas). So he gave reluctant leave, knowing that resisting, as Thingol did, was unwise, but that unless it was to reunite houses with his twin's heir and restore the high kingship of men, that he would part with his daughter forever for no less cause. Aragorn, also knowing these things, understood that, and went out into the world to achieve this goal, and had not the ill will to his proposed father-in-law that Beren must have borne, and left no reason for Arwen to be bitter to her father and to flee Rivendell, to her peril.
Elrond chose wisely with little certainty and much grief before him. He could no more repent of his choice than Arwen later could, or the heirs of his brother (which led to the folly and downfall of Numenor). Indeed, alas! for Elrond! Beren and Luthien had passed forever from the world, the ultimate fates of Tuor and Idril unknown, his father forever bound to sail the skies and his mother with Earendil, and all his children remained in Middle Earth after he passed west, abiding the Gift of Men, to be removed from the circles of Arda that he had chosen to remain bound to. Only with his wife could he hope to reunite in Aman, and bring to her the certainly grievous news that she would see her children no more. Truly all outcomes of the War of the Ring could only be grievous to him, and only with little comfort at success.
Yet he too passed the test, and by his generosity and grief was Gondor and the heirs of Numenor restored.
Around 29:50. A few things changed for Aragorn by that scene. He took control of the army of the dead, defeated the fleet at Pelargir and won the battle of Pelennor. I think any one would get some confidence from any of those acts. Imagine the 3 of them in the period of a few days. So I do not agree at all at that point
Did you notice that Legolas called Isildur "the Last King of Gondor?" Lol
...
I did. I suspect this was intentional so the unsavvy movie goer wouldn’t be confused due to the lack of a tale of years showing all the subsequent kings descended from Isildur’s brother lol
Yeah that makes sense, but I think a short recap of the tale of Earnur would have been a great way to introduce the Witch King as a menacing character while staying true to the book.
Missed opportunities could be a subtitle for Jackson’s adaptation, sadly lol
I think Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron was the worst character assassination they could have done to him. Aragorn would never have done that in a million years, even if the ambassador was an orc, much less a human being. It would raise questions about his temperament and suitability to even be the king, and Gandalf wouldve sharply rebuked him.
It just struck me that Turin Turamber wouldve lopped off that guy's head without a second thought lol.
I thought "the same weakness" was vulnerability to the One Ring: the Ring amplifies and therefore depends upon the tendency to command others. Hobbits are the epitome of humble common folk, which is what gives them the best resistance. So it's precisely because Aragorn is a king by right and by nature that he can't do what's needed to restore the kingship.
Aragorn in the movies is conflicted. He thinks his lineage is cool, but since Isildur fucked up he is afraid he's gonna fuck up too. He thinks himself lesser than them and doesn't feel worthy. At the end of the trilogy he has grown a bit and winning the war gave him the confidence.
I feel in the films aragorn does want the position but is afraid of the faliour, but he changes views without much reason to break the fear. I get where they were going and how it helps the story tention for the films but 1. It could have been exicuted better and 2. It seeks to diminish the true nature of aragorn and his story which I'm sure has been going on much before his entailment with the hobbit and the ring
Totally agreed!
This is a little random but, how long till we get a reboot of LOTR? Will the Amazon series slake our thirst for more?
Personally I doubt we’ll ever get a reboot, and we probably wouldn’t like it if we got one. With the Prime series in withholding judgment.
The way your decor is hung bothers me. The spacing looks odd and the heights. IDK what you can do about the swords as they all rest at different heights in their holders
Yeah they’re a bit off. Super difficult to hang straight. But you won’t be seeing them for a while because I’ve moved so no worries. ;) Once I get a permanent studio I’ll make sure to get them hung properly.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Speaking of your swords... Where did you get them? They look awesome!
The Noble Collection
@@TolkienLorePodcast Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, The Noble Collection no longer carries LOTR swords - only The Hobbit swords. So they are limited to Sting, Glamdring, and Orcrist. But I have another supplier in mind.
Yeah the films changed all the main characters in ways that just... they're not even really adaptations of LotR, they're just vaguely LotR inspired films!
I think Peter Jackson was also sloppy in telling the audience why Aragorn's insight into the Ring was useful. Legolas announces to the Council, Boromir, and the audience, that Strider the Ranger is Aragorn son of Arathorn and Boromir owes him his allegiance. If the viewer didn't know why the form of his name was so important, they wouldn't know why Boromir, son of the Steward of Gondor should owe his allegiance to a mere Ranger of the North.
Yeah, it’s definitely a head scratcher, as if only kings get names starting with Ara (kinda true but the audience is not likely to know that).
him taunting the Dark One is pretty self-explanatory. it was a good way to draw his attention. has no bearing on anything else, that.
In the books, Arwen never had that big of a role. Except for a few passages. They tried to make the story more romantic, to it's downfall. Maybe it's harsh, but that's my opinion.
I think you might be misremembering one of the details from Appendix A. You say that Aragorn was still at a fairly early age when Elrond issued the condition that he must the the king of the reunited kingdoms before he could wed Arwen. But this actually happened in T.A. 2980, after Aragorn and Arwen betrothed themselves to each other. He was already 49 years old--"grown to full stature of body and mind". I do agree with the main thrust of your essay. When I developed a timeline for gaming in the movie continuity I hand-waved a lot of these issues the films create regarding Aragorn, but I was aware of them. I also ended up assigning movie-Aragorn a birth-year of 2915.
Well that’s still well before the events of the main story, so the point still stands, but good catch!
@@TolkienLorePodcast Yes, that's still well before the War of the Ring, even if we can arguably move the years of the war to as early as 3001-3002 in the films. By my best reckoning, Aragorn in Peter Jackson's film series turned 49 years old in about the year 2964.
There is allusions in the book that Aragorn is showing himself as Elendils heir to Sauron via the palantir in Helms Deep after the defeat of Saruman and that this kinda new bad news to the big S.
As I recall (it's been a while), Aragorn shows himself to Sauron to make Sauron think Aragorn must have the One Ring in order to be so bold. Pretty much everything Aragorn does throughout Book 5 is to continue to bluff Sauron into believing that's where the Ring is and keep him from looking for it elsewhere.
It's not news to Sauron that Isildur's heir is running around causing trouble; it is news that he's become confident enough to challenge Sauron directly rather than remaining in the shadows.
Well that’s Gandalf’s strategy more than Aragorn’s. Aragorn actually implies that Sauron doesn’t know about him when he tells Legolas and Gimli that to know he lived would be a blow to Sauron’s heart.
@@TolkienLorePodcast The decision to reveal himself in the Palantir was definitely Aragorn's alone - and, yes, checking the passage, Aragorn says outright that Sauron didn't yet know about Aragorn (despite his having declared himself openly in Edoras).
The movie 🍿 has a haunted , almost gothic heaviness to it in places. Maybe more psychological as well
i would have chosen keanu reeves as aragon, by the two towers i knew i was wrong
The turning point for Aragorn in the movie is the death of Boromir imo
Excellent points.
When it comes to the reluctant warrior, the concept appears oxymoronic to me.
As the teacher Kreia once said, speaking of Ajunta Paul's meeting with Lord Revan, it's a betrayal of the self to turn on one self when you're well past the precipice. A form of spiritual collapse, something few recover from. In theory, we can all appreciate the redemptive effects of becoming a victim of the evil that has befallen us, but in practice? Nay.
In order to go to war, one has to accept that you can be killed. You might kill elders, women, and children, but also that all your loved ones back home can be killed. One step further - there are far worse things to occur in war than death alone. Of torture and rape of infinite variation and scale, there're no limitations. A warrior require the will to accept the sanguinary reality of war for what it is.
To be reluctant is antithetical to the vigour, courage, and aggressiveness expected of a warrior.
To be reluctant is inauthentic for a warrior. Like an open marriage. Like closeted gays who have jet to accept reality. Like a scholar who spends life in an ivory tower, but never gets blood, sweat, nor dirt under his fingernails. It's a betrayal of the self to not fully integrate the self with reality.
Cowards, unconsciously masquerading fear as kindness. The reluctant type know full well it's fear that grips them.
Name a warrior protagonist who embraced all that war had to offer, in the sportsmanlike sense of Xenophons journey into Persia, without self pity. Canderous or Sgt. Todd 3465 came close, but broke down at the end.
A lot of changes that PJ made in the stories are complete rubbish. Highly unnecessary and in fact, detrimental to the narrative.
Book aragorn is better no doubt.
Someone not worth saving from the pyre of Denathor best describes Faramir in the Peter Jackson films.
You say there is no reason for him to be king in the movie, but he needed to be king, or at least accept his role "to be king" to get the army of the dead to follow him.
27:54 Peter Jackson feminism = a woman cannot be a good warrior and a good housewife 🤢
Tolkien feminism = a woman can be a good warrior and then choose to be a healer ❤
The LotR movies really aren't that great. They take a lot of liberties with the source material, removing some of the soul and polish that made LotR be in fact LotR. And additionally, the second two really had a lot of silly action scenes. The comic relief is also really bad. Of course they do have a high production value and a lot of dramatic moments. So they are very great fantasy movies, in a genre that really has a lot of trash. But a great LotR retelling in movie form? No Way. BTW, I thought that Aragon was completely miscasted. He looked like a scoundrel.
Swords are pretty cool, you have at least 3, and they can change a man's attitude about stuff...
haha, I've only seen you this annoyed when you did the "debunking CinemaSins" series.
Have you dealt with how poorly Denethor or the Ents got treated in the movies? 😉
I’m sure I’ve dealt with both somewhere lol
I do not agree on your take on Aragorn doubts; the rest i do.
The butchery of the characters of Aragorn, Faramir, and Treebeard, and the grotesque transformation of Gimli into comic relief made the movies completely worthless as far as I am concerned. I watched them once when they first came out, and will never set eyes on them again.
I loved the movies, but they had many flaws.