[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Regarding Jacksons change in Aragorn: Tolkien wrote the book and crafted the character of Aragorn in a different era from todays world. After World War II, there was development of the anti-hero in literature, theater and cinema. Of course, that did not impact Toliiens writings one iota. These far more complex and even conflicted characters came to be portrayed by such actors as Brando, Paul Newman, Montgomery Clift and- later - Dustin Hoffman. The idea of the 100% philosophically pure, 100% good stereortypical hero became something of a joke. Just look at the way even Disney and amimated movies now use that archetype for laughs.

It would probably be grating on 21st century film audiences to see a hero in the mold of the 19th century virtues that Tolkien constructed Aragorn with. It would have been out of the vocabulary of many 21st ticket buyers and would have seemed terribly jarring or even comical.

It is true enough what you say about changing values and tastes in heroes. Yet, I would venture to say that it would not be impossible to present an ancient, traditional hero to today's contemporary audience. It would take but imagination, creativity, true subcreation of a genius film maker. At the risk of being accused of Bondage, I would say, 'never say never.'

Perhaps as an aside, I would say too that Book-Aragorn is less a 19th century figure than one subcreated out of many earlier traditions of hero, Arthurian no less than Shakespearean and Old English. Arthur and Lancelot were flawed. Less so Galahad and Perceval. And there's been no diminishing in interest in Camelot in these rough modern times even with our Knights of Ni--who in fact were parodying modern misconceptions of medieval times.

So I would say not that Book-Aragorn could not be depicted in these cynical times but that Aragorn presents aspects of Tolkien's Middle-earth and Legendarium that could not be accomodated in the hands of PJ et al with the adventure flick concept which PJ wedded to Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

As a side note to the "Let's hunt some orc" bit in the movies, Bethberry, you might find this interesting:

I've been waiting for someone to bring that up and am much obliged to you, Boro88 for doing so. Clearly, that quotation is PJ's justification for moving the 'hunting orcs' line to the death of Boromir scene.

Yet, yet, I would argue that the two scenes are quite different and require a langauge, command and composure from Aragorn. Aragorn's audiences--Eomer and his Rohirrim Riders versus Gimli and Lego--are different and so his purpose differs as well.

Upon the death of Boromir and the loss of the Ringbearer and Sam, and the kidnapping of the two spare hobbits, Aragorn speaks with the remaining members of the Fellowship. This is not a mano e mano situation, but one where all combatants know each other. Aragorn's monologue hints of those moments in LotR where there seems to be a hidden guiding hand, such as at last comes free in its final exquisite play with Gollem's final desperate leap to claim the Ring.

The Riders of Rohan scene is mightily different, for here our intrepid little band of threeship come point to spear point with the warrior tribe of LotR. And here it must be a mano e mano confrontation between Aragorn and Eomer and so here such crude short hand is appropriate. It is also Aragorn's way of appealing to what he hopes will be the honourable side of the Rohirrim, should they not yet have fallen into the fiefdom of Sauron. Here Aragorn dares to appropriate something of the battle tastes of the Rohirrim as a means of closing the distance between the circled horse riders and his three fellows, closing it without spear or bow.

So, because of this contextual difference, of the need for Aragorn to appeal to different audiences, I find it easy to understand, and would not question, why Tolkien put those words in Book-Aragorn's mouth at that time of first meeting Eomer. Not so easy to see the need for Movie-Aragorn , other than the usual complaint of condensing three books into three hour movies.

I suppose another way of saying this is that PJ must have decided that his target audience for the movies were contemporary versions of Rohirrim.

Dearie, Darling Lush, it is, after all is said and done, a weak reader who reads only with personal touchstones. We all do it, and reading would be much the poorer without it, yet alone is is a prison house of language. It alone, all else is solipcism.