Aragorn

[Captain Stern]

Originaly posted by Bropous: Well, again, had the film simply been a verbatim regurgitation of the books, non-initiates would have had their eyes glaze over by the time the hobbits reached Crickhollow, and would have left the theatre. Also, very few new readers would have been introduced to the Fold.

Again, you persist in blindly defending changes Peter Jackson has made to the story. Sticking to events that happened in the book doesn't mean that P.J had to do it word for word in the film too, why would you think this?
You are trying to make out that had P.J portrayed Aragorn's relationship with Elrond and the kingship of Gondor the same as Tolkien had, it would have made the film worse in some way. Again, what's you'r reasoning behind this? I really don't think you have a case here.

Originaly posted by Bropous: Elrond did NOT agree to give him the hand of Arwen by the time of the counci, and basically told him that he would NEVER part with Arwen willingly. SOURCE: Appendix A, Return of the King.

That simply isn't true. If you read more of Appendix A, you'd come accross this dialogue between Elrond and Aragorn:

"My son, years come when hope will fade, and beyond them little is clear to me. And now a shadow lies between us. Maybe, it has appointed so, that by my loss the kingship of men may be restored. Therefore, though I love you , I say to you: Arwen Undomiel shall not diminish her life's grace for less cause. She shall not be the bride of any man less than the king of both Gondor and Arnor. To me then even our victory can bring only sorrow and parting - but to you hope of joy for a while. Alas, my son! I fear that to Arwen the Doom of Men may seem hard at the ending."

Originaly posted by Bropous: As for Aragorn, Aragorn certainly WAS leery of claiming the Kingship of Gondor, at the time of the Council, if only because he was heartbroken that Arwen was denied to him by Elrond

So, if you read the passage above, you'll notice that long before the council of Elrond, Elrond had told Aragorn that he could indeed have Arwen, only after he had claimed the kingship of Gondor and Arnor. So, you couldn't be more wrong , and proves that Peter Jackson completely changed what Tolkien wrote.

[jerseydevil]

I agree with you. Nowhere in the books did Elrond seem to have disdain for Aragorn like he does in the movie. So many of Jackson's changes make no sense. He could have easily have followed the characterizations and the plot without doing a verbatim copy of the books.

I wasn't looking for a verbatim copy - but I think with the number of changes that Jackson made - the movie has no feeling to it. Aragorn's character is completely unrecongnizable and I still have trouble telling Merry and Pippin apart.

Hopefully people that read the books for the first time after seeing the movie - will see that the books are 1000 times superior than the movie. I think they will be surprised at how different so many of the charcacters are in the books and how much was left out. But then again - so many people won't read the books, like my friend that compared it to Fast and Furious.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Hopefully people that read the books for the first time after seeing the movie - will see that the books are 1000 times superior than the movie. I think they will be surprised at how different so many of the charcacters are in the books and how much was left out. But then again - so many people won't read the books, like my friend that compared it to Fast and Furious.

No film can ever beat the book it was based on. Books have much more possibilities. A book allows you to visualise the scenes and everybody does that in a different way. A film is a view of one man or one group of them. Naturally there will always be somebody who didn't like the interpretation or visualising because it doesn't correspond with their view.

Books have no limit, they can go on as long as the writer want's them too, film have to be limited, so you can never include all the scenes from the book. The only solution (if you can call it that) is to make sure you pick the right scenes for the movie, and again that could depend a lot on views.

On the other hand, I think it is somehow too soon to judge the characters of the movie. Every one of us has based their view on the characters after reading all THREE books,characters can change afterall. Personally I wouldn't judge the film's characters after just one film, wait for all three films.

[jerseydevil]

yeah - I understand that. Basically I think it comes down to the fact that I really didn't like the movie that much.

Maybe I'm in the minority and I don't care - but I never even cared about any of the characters - and that's a big thing.

I had thought that the movie would be a better represensentation of the books - since in all the interviews with Jackson he said he was referencing the appendixes, The Silmarrillian, and the actors constantly referred to LOTR to get to know their character. In Aragorn's case - why bother? He wasn't the same character as he is in the book and unless Jackson completely changed - which I doubt - TT and ROTK are not going to make the charcters any better. Especially since they were filmed simultaneously.

I'll continue watching the movie - because it's the only thing out there really. But I don't think Jackson did a good job of bringing LOTR to the big screen. He may have captured the landscape of Middle Earth - but that's all. He left out the feeling. FOTR is a slash and hack movie - there is only probably about a half hour of non-action scenes out of the whole thing.

I'm also being hard on the movie because of the interviews that I had heard from Jackson. Don't say you're staying true to the books and then completely change the characters and their "motivation". Aragorn is only one example - but he is one of the worst changes made.

I knew I was going to have problems the moment Aragorn drew his sword in Bree and it wasn't Narsil.

[bropous]

Well, I do think a case can be made that Jackson could have stayed a bit more true to the books wihtout the film becoming a "verbatim regurgitation." I don't see how the film would have been harmed by the inclusion of, say, Gandalf's letter to Frodo delivered in Bree by Barliman to explain more fully why the hobbits would have trusted Strider, nor by staying more true to the books at the Fords of Bruinen. The insertion of the cave-troll to "skewer" Frodo instead of an orc, I found unnecessary. I have attempted to understand why Jakcson would have made these changes, but whatever his reasoning, I think the film would have been more effective had he stayed closer to the original story.

I also think the balance between Tolkien Fans and uninitiated audience members could have swayed a tad more to the Fan side without driving folks out of the theater. Yup, I've evolved my opinion a bit in that aspect.

Oh well, it was Jackson's film, and although many of us would have changed it here or there, I still think the film is a creditable effort. I did care about the characters, and feel I would have even had I never read the books. Again, the real benefit here is that Jackson's film is leading millions of new readers to pick up Tolkien's books. I'll take that in trade-off to a film perfectly matched to the books any day. Druthers notwithstanding.

[jerseydevil]

I personally really don't care if more people read LOTR - it doesn't put any money in my pocket. People should just read - the books are always better anyway.

I am glad that you do see that Jackson made a lot of unnecessary changes to LOTR. Changes that really didn't need to be made to shorten or to make it more easily understood.

Hopefully - someone at sometime will finelly bring the true LOTR to the screen. I'm not saying a verbatim copy - there are things that I would have shortened or removed too. But just saying one that keeps the feeling of the book and the characters - instead of changing almost every scene into an action scene.

I hope in TT and ROTK I can finally tell Merrry and Pippin apart. Hopefully Aragorn will be redemed in TT - but I'm not expecting much from those two movies after seeing FOTR. Maybe that's a good thing because my expectation of FOTR were high based on Jackson's interviews - now they're so low that I may actually find the next two better.

[bropous]

Well, I care whether more folks read the books because they carry a really good set of moral lessons which I think the world is better off by having a greater number of people exposed thereto.

Even a million new folks taking the true lessons of the books to heart improves the species, to coin a phrase from another thread...

Nope, more folks reading the Tolkien works puts not a single additional copper in my pocket either, but I think that positive works such as the LotR enhances the human experience. The more folks exposed to JRR's world the better for all of us, in my humble EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMEDDCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO opinion.

So, even though I have reservations with how Jackson crafted the film, even as to the personality of Aragorn, I view it as a positive effect overall.

[sun-star]

I started to read the books after I saw the film, and I have to be eternally grateful to the film-makers just for that! Although it's a pity I won't have my own "pictures" of the characters or the events of the first book, I think that persuading people who might have thought that LOTR was really for nerds to change their minds and see it for what it is has to be a good thing. If people care enough, they can always go to the books for the real deal!

[jerseydevil]

I'm glad that you read the books. I've just had several friends tell me - "why should I read the books? The movie is good enough for me." It's a very ignorant view.

I've always recommended and tried to get people to read the books. And yes - I do see a lot of people carrying them around with them - which is good. I'd be interested to knowing how many people get frustrated with reading them after they find out there isn't as much action in them (untill TT) - and which they like better the book or movie.

[Quazar]

I personally cannot think of a single movie that I have ever seen, where I read the book first, where the movie was better than the book. I agree that several of the things Jackson did in the movie I don't agree with, but again I try to enjoy the movie for what it is, a movie, not a documentary of a book. I keep getting the feeling from reading a lot of these posts is that's what you want. I don't think it can be done without creating long stretches of tedium requireing a over narative to explain what is going on. Yes, if I had made the movie I would have made it differently, cutting things I didn't think were important, and adding the things which I thought were.

[jerseydevil]

I was hoping that the movie was going to be a closer representation of the books. Not verbatim or anything like that - but the movie does lack the magic of the books. I don't really like the movie that much. It's an okay movie - with great special effects, a lot of action, great scenery - but very little character development or anythign else. And it's not even that I don't like action movies - I do - but it wasn't what I expected to see when I walked in to see LOTR - especially with following Jackson inetrviews ever since the movie was announced.

I think if Jackson didn't say he was using all of Tolkien's books and everything as guides during the making and said that it was going to be different - I could have accepted it a little more. In interviews, the way Jackson made it sound was that he was keeping the heart of the books in the movie.

I accepted a lot of movies that I had read as books first. Although Interview With a Vampire was changed a lot - I thought the movie was acceptable. Carrie was good - both the movie and the book. Dracula was good (with Belagosi).

Since this is a "Aragorn" Thread - my position stands with my feelings toward him. I think Jackson completely screwed up his character.

[olsonm]

Hi, I'm new. I've been reading this post with great intrest. I must say that I think bropous and Captain Stern are both right...and wrong! bropous was right to say that Elrond didn't think Aragorn was worthy of Arwen. Captain Stern was right to point to the later conversation between the two to refute the idea that Elrond still 'denied' Aragorn a chance to win Arwen at the council.
However, I believe that Cap. is wrong to imply that Elrond's speech (begginning "My son...") was meant as a criteria by which Aragorn "could indeed have Arwen". In fact Aragorn already 'had' Arwen. Before this fatefull talk with Elrond Aragorn and Arwen had chosen to be together and, "[Arwen's] doom was appointed."
Only after this did the aforementioned 'fatefull talk' take place and it is my contention that Elrond was simply predicting what would happen if they defeated Sauron. He was saying that if his daughter had chosen to sacrifice herself, at least it was for a noble cause. He never granted permission because permission was not his to grant. Arwen made her own choice. Please correct me if I misinterpreted any previous posts or the book.

[bropous]

See, I thought that Jackson did a good job at telling the heart of the book but didn't translate all the details. I have to agree that portions of the books were re-written for no apparent reason, and I don't back Jackson on that. However, I think it told enough of the story to convey the entirety of the tale while avoiding some details which may have further confused people who had not been exposed to the books. Unknowing audiences may have gotten confused by characters passing in and out of the story, sometimes to not reappear.

But like I said, my feelings towards this film have evolved since its release. I realize from reading "Letters of JRR Tolkien" that JRR himself probably would NOT have liked the film, especially because the re-writes were so totally unnecessary. Aragorn could have been better written, and timelines could have remained the same without getting in the way of a cinematic treatment.

All in all, I am relieved it was Jackson and not some other Hollyweird marionette who got hold of the project, and brought it as close to the original as he did, failings notwithstanding. Again, I think it does a good job of pulling new readers into Tolkien's world, and though it does not hold true to the books in all ways, it is still an acceptable adaptation of Tolkien's Middle-Earth.

[bropous]

Welcome to the Moot, olsonm!

So do you think that Elrond may have been "setting up" Aragorn sort of like Thingol set up Beren? "Suuuuuure, Mr. Human, go and do Hercules' twelve tasks and you can have my daughter's hand..."..... and then, possibly, set the stage for his future broken heart, setting the suitor of his daughter on the road to success, eventually being the catalyst for seeing her go into mortality like Luthien?

[Quazar]

For a bizarre thought , picture Alfred Hitchcock making FOTR, somewhat like North by Northwest Frodo, or Psyco Aragorn. Oh since this an Aragorn thread, I think Jackson minimized certain aspects of his personality, or he would have dominated any scene he was in, afterall it's the ringbeare's movie.

Frodo Lives!!!!

[olsonm]

Thanks for the welcome bropous!

I think the key difference between Aragorn/Elrond and Beren/Thingol was that Elrond always loved Aragorn, wereas Thingol didn't like Beren in the beginng. So no I don't think Elrond was setting up Aragorn. I think Elrond was commenting on the fact that his daughters fate wasn't in his hands and he was sad. Though Elrond loved him, Aragorn was the reason Arwen would die. Elrond accepted this as being out of his hands and he saw that good could come of it, but he said," now a shadow lies between us." Can you imagine the conflicting feelings Elrond must have had towards Aragorn. I don't think these feelings ever became disdain but there was conflict. Of course, I could be wrong here.

[bropous]

Nope, olsonm, you don't seem to be wrong. Sound like good points to me.

[jerseydevil]

Throughout LOTR Tolkien basically says that Elrond raised Aragorn and he was basically treated just like his own sons. Elrond's sons were like brothers to Aragorn. I never got the impression from LOTR or any of the other books that Elrond had any other feelings for Aragorn other than love.

True he didn't want Arwen to die, but he did not have the coldness toward Aragorn as he does in the movie. He accepted Arwen's decission a long time ago. It was not an issue during The War of the Ring other than him knowing the personal consequences that he was going to suffer because of victory.

[olsonm]

That's what I meant jerseydevil. I should have been more careful. I didn't mean to imply that Elrond loved Aragorn any less. He loved Aragorn AND accepted Arwen's decision, the conflict between those two thoughts (love for Aragorn and love for Arwen) was what caused the 'shadow' between Aragorn and Elrond. Not that Elrond was mad at Aragorn but that he was sad about his loss, his only solace being that he knew it was for a noble cause.
I was only talking about the earlier disscussion by bropous and Captain Stern and forgot to connect it to the movie

[olsonm]

I don't really want to criticize PJ's Aragorn until I've seen the DVD(assuming of course that it has deleted scenes). But I certainly see were everyone is coming from about the changes.