Forever?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

However, in the case of Aragorn, I think PJ made a big mistake.

There is no doubt that film Aragorn is a significantly different character than book Aragorn (as is the case with many other cherished characters). Was that a mistake on Jackson's part? Well, undoubtedly so for many who have read the books. But not necessarily in the context of what Jackson was trying to achieve.

There seems to be held a commonly-held view that, in modern films, the principal characters should have what I believe is known as a "development arc". In other words they should show a marked development in their character throughout the film (or in this case three films) as a result of the experiences that they go undergo on screen. Whether that really is a necessary requirement of a "mass appeal" film, I do not know. But I should imagine that those responsible for producing and financing these kinds of films (or, more accurately, people on their behalf) do a lot of research into this sort of thing, so perhaps there is something in it.

Book Aragorn develops outwardly and those around him notice it. He becomes more noble and kingly as the book progresses. But, inside, he is the same character from when we meet him in the Prancing Pony through to his coronation. Save for his brief moments of self-doubt from Gandalf's fall through to the departure of Frodo and Sam, there is very little variation in his character. Film Aragorn, on the other hand, develops markedly in confidence and assurance throughout the three films.

I also think that there is an element of the film-makers wnating to present us with a more vulnerable, more "human", Aragorn. One who has flaws with which we can identify, but which he overcomes to claim his rightful inheritance. And, in this regard, I have to say that I have a sneaking admiration for film Aragorn. I risk been pelted heavily with rotten fruit here, but the more that I read the book, the more I find myself unable to identify with Aragorn. He is, for the most part, just too perfect for me, and too flat a character. Now, I recognise that there are very good arguments as to why this should be so in the context of the book. But I can also see why the film-makers might have wanted to present an Aragorn with whom they felt that a greater majority of (non-LotR reading) film audiences might identify.

... as there is thick snow on the ground in Sheffield and I'm nithering.

Snow! How delightful. Think yourself lucky. All we get here in London is cold, windy rain.

Tolkien presents us with a much more disturbing idea - 'good' people may not actually desire 'good' - they may actually desire 'evil'.

Fair point, and I don't disagree with Tolkien's premise. But, had the films delved any deeper into this (and admittedly they did not delve very deep at all), they would have been very much darker films, and most probably significantly less successful (in terms of mass appeal). There are of course films that explore this theme, some very successfully so. But I am not sure that the public at large is quite ready for it to be explored in a film populated by Elves, Dwarves and Magic Rings. In fact, I would say that many who read the book, perhaps even the majority, do not pick up on this theme (or at least do not reflect upon it to any great degree). I didn't until relatively recently.

Perhaps that was necessary in a popular action fantasy movie, but LotR is not a popular action fantasy book. It is a moral tale, specifically a Christian tale, & it is grounded is the idea of original sin, & the individual's battle with it.

Again, I do not disagree. But I think it tells us more about the nature of the respective media that about Jackson's own interpretation of the book.