Differences in Aragorn
 

Do you believe that PJ did a poor job with Aragorn's part in the Fellowship of the Ring? In the book, Aragorn will not carry any sword save Narsil, while in the movie he fights off the Nazgul with a torch and a sword... Also, Book Aragorn was ready and willing to take on his role as Isildur's Heir, while in the movie, he is afraid to accept his role... Major differences!

Actor choice, director choice. I think that choices like that work better for film because it makes his growth bigger and when he is fully accepting it will be bigger for the audience. <BR>I act and we always talk about making big choices that will play the best. I think that Viggo and PJ mad a great choice in this instance. You really get to see Aragorn grow.

In PRIEMERE magazine this month there is a big feature article about Viggo Mortenson. In it he talks about reading LotR and his impressions of Aragorn's character. The funny thing was, he described the movie Aragorn (i.e., his insecurites about accepting his fate as King). Now, he said "the book" not "the screenplay". So did Viggo just really have a different interpretation of Aragorn then the rest of us?

I think the way PJ protrayed him did show him grow (well...for once we agree, Tigerlily ). I think that PJ will give the final development of Aragorn the way it should be. PJ just went about a different way of doing it, so I guess the end justifies the means. When a lot of us criticize PJ for his decisions/actions we're just pointing it out, but in the end we're happy with the movie, so again, the end justifies the means. However, I wish they made Aragorn more confident.

Diamond18 I think that may be true. PJ, I think, had allowed the actors to voice opinions about characters (especially their own) so if Viggo interpeted it a certain way and PJ agreed, they might have allowed some changes.

In an article I read (Empire, I think) it talks about how Viggo would be up late working on his character & that PJ would get faxes from him with impressions and suggestions at all hours of the morning! Jackson says it was nice to know that someone else was being kept up at night with the project.<BR>I tell ya, Viggo is an inspiration as an actor, and as an overall artist. He is someone I watch so that I can learn to better myself in the artistic field.

I didn't mind the extra insecurities in the short version (i.e. his conversation with Arwen near the Shards of Narsil) but I thought the scene in the Ex. Ed. by Gilrean's grave went a little overboard with the line "I do not want that power, I have never wanted it".<P>But Tigerlily hints at "big growth" in TTT. Oooh, I can't wait.<P>It's good for the actors sake to let them have a big hand in the spin on their character...now that you mention it Willie, I recall an interview with Billy Boyd about that. He said something about "If we had to spend two years being told 'Stand here, look up and say this' all the time...there would be 'bodies'..." Or something like that. I'm probably misquoting him terribly.

I liked the Aragorn portrayl in the film. It made him seem humble. In the books, Aragorn is strong and sure, but I'm afraid if that was put on screen, people would see that as arrogant and cocky.<P>I think Fellowship was our chance to see "strider" and towers and ROTK will both be "Aragorn/Elssar" films.

I will have to wait till I see the other two movies before I can get a good hand on the Aragorn question. This next movie seems to be a big step up, and after the final, well, I don't want to say Aragorn was this or that till I get the "full treatment"!

I thought Aragorn was very good in the film, I think Peter Jackson will work up to him being the king and all that gently

I can see how Mortensen might have gotten the movie Aragorn out of the book Aragorn, mostly because when I first read the books I wasn't really sure WHAT was holding him up - it's explained rather obscurely. All you see at first is that he's the heir and waiting for his time to come, and meanwhile has spent most of his life with various armies and being a Ranger. If you haven't gotten to the appendices yet or have read the book quickly, you could very easily think "All right, what's holding him back? If I had spent 70+ years drifting like this" (because that is what it looks like) "What would be holding me back?"<P>Obvious answer would be Doubt. And of course, you need some sort of dramatic climax to take away doubt and give him resolution - in the case of the movies I'm sure that the death of Boromir was it. It would be the wrong answer ultimately, considering Tolkien's explanations, but it's nonetheless a plausible one, and it does give him a very visible character arc.

Aragorn does need to "grow", but he also needs the confidnce and reason of a king. Thats where i think PJ went wrong.

To me, the choice was understandable and good, for the reasons stated above. And i'll have to admit that I didn't like book-Aragorn at all, but in the FotR movie I liked and admired him. So if Jackson wasn't compleatly true to the character Tolkien created, he did make Aragorn a person most of us could relate to and love more easily.

These things have been discussed before - thing is, what works in a book doesn't necessarily do so in a movie. Just picture Aragorn drawing a broken sword to defend Frodo & the ring in the movie (the 'Pranching Pony' scene)! Not working - woulda looked downright silly. And the narrative doesn't work the same either - & the tempo.<P>Oh, & btw., I think the Aragorn character in the movie is actually more interesting than the book one...