The Paths of the Dead
 

I've scanned the forum for a thread on this already, but I didn't find one. If I'm repeating a discussion, sorry.
RotK has many things that bugged me - being a book purist in this case - but one of the things that bugged me most was the Paths of the Dead. The way the movie portrayed it made it seem like the Dead couldn't feel it was time to take care of their unfinished business, which is something I saw in the books. If I remember correctly, in the books the Dead knew it was time to forfill their oath. Perhaps Aragorn yelling; "Let us pass, and then come! I summon you to the Stone of Erech! " had something to do with it. After that, some hours later into in the book, Legolas states that the Dead are following. For those of you whom have read the books, you might remember that Aragorn talked (in general) to Dead at the Stone. And then he stated who he was etc. leading to the Dead following the Company.
So, why did the movie makers use Aragorn's sword instead of his presence as the main reason the Dead knew who Aragorn was and what was going on in the movie? I think it would have had a greater impact had they left out Aragorn having to confront the King of the Dead sword to sword. That was rather pathetic in my opinion. BUT am I missing some point that was made? Did the sword need to be made into some great and feared object of the Dead?

In the movie, Isuildur cursed them, however they found out that Narsil was broken. The sword would only be held by Iduildur's heir. When the king of the dead swung his sword at Aragorn, He held up Narsil, or Anduril rather, blocked his attack, this meant to the dead that Aragorn was truly isuildur's heir.

Too add on what my evil clone said, the sword was the symbol of the line, so they used the sword to fully express its importance

Yes... evil... I think they made it more important in ROTK because Aragorn techinically got it before he set out with the fellowship. That part was left out...

I think part of it is that a sword is a much easier way to show something like that in a movie than "Aragorn's presence." That kind of depth is much harder to get on a movie. Also they probably wanted to show some more importance on Aragorn's sword.

I think it was PJ trying to make sure that the audience got the point that by accepting his sword, Aragorn had accepted the kingship. So PJ pretty much used his sword as a symbol of who he was instead of Aragorn himself. Did it nead to be made into some great, feared object? Not necessarily. Any who fought against Aragorn were obviously mortally afraid of the sword, but I don't think you're missing some vast importance of the sword.

I thought that the scene just built more on the power of his sword, so I had no problem with it, what I thought was pathetic was how Aragorn grabbed the King of the Dead by the throat :rolleyes:.