Aragorn's Age in 'The Hobbit'

[Valandil]

Alright... a lot of friends here are going to think I've gone over to the Dark Side, but bear with me.

Canonically, Aragorn's age at the time Bilbo passes through Rivendell at the start of his journey is precisely fixed at 10 years old. You can look it up in Appendix B of LOTR. Open and shut, case closed, etc.

But for the movies' sake, I wonder if it should be treated differently. I think it's possible for Aragorn to make an appearance as a young man - of 20 or even 25. Here's why:

In the LOTR movies, Bilbo was clearly 111 (eleventy-one) at his farewell birthday party. In the book, it's another 17 years before Frodo leaves the Shire. But in the movies, it couldn't have been nearly so long. 1 year at most, maybe not that. Just time for Gandalf to ride to Minas Tirith (apparently full gallop the whole way ), spend some time looking through the old scrolls, and ride back. OK - if the search was long, maybe 2 years - but I don't think 17.

Meanwhile - in the Extended Edition of TT, Aragorn tells Eowyn that he's 88. Just about right on - except he forgot that he'd just had a birthday a few days before (with all that was going on, maybe it slipped his mind). So he was really 89 - but no big difference.

Now... IF Bilbo is 50 when he starts out, Aragorn could not be 10 - in the movies. He would have to be about 25. Or maybe we fudge a little and let Bilbo be 45 and Aragorn 20.

The exciting thing about this is... Peter Jackson COULD weave in part of the Tale of Aragorn & Arwen that we see in Appendix A - and that otherwise could not be incorporated into the movie. And when you think about it - if it isn't put into these movies - they're not going to make another movie that will show that. I mean - I personally would go for a 'LOTR - Appendix A' Movie in a BIG WAY, but I'm a rather limited audience.

So this is what I would just LOVE to see happen:
* Before Bilbo reaches Rivendell, Arwen arrives from Lorien. After all - grandma didn't want her hanging around because things were going to get tense with Dol Guldor.
* Meanwhile - Aragorn (20-or-so) comes in, maybe even with a scouting report on Thorin's party - and Elrond reveals to him his lineage.
* Soon after Arwen's arrival, she meets Aragorn, as described in App A.
* Interlude of Dwarven party's arrival. Maybe we get a small download on the old North Kingdom - Arnor. Bilbo makes a hobbity statement about 'when the king comes back' (perhaps in Aragorn's presence!) - and someone states offhand that from beyond the Shire to the fords of Bruinen once was a land called Arnor - sister kingdom to Gondor. No more need be said.
* After they go, we see Gilraen, Aragorn's mother, who asks him what's on his mind.
* After speaking with his mother, Aragorn is called before Elrond, again - per Appendix A. Elrond names the bride-price (must be king of both Arnor and Gondor). Aragorn goes into the wild.

I mean... wouldn't that all be GREAT! And otherwise - we'll never see it on the screen! Contrast with images of a 10-year old, wandering around Rivendell.

OK... what do you folks think? Even throw darts, if you must. But this is a change to the story/backstory that I would like to see. And... it doesn't really change the story so much. In fact, it tells more of it. It only messes with timelines. Or rather - keeps them as they were modified to in the first series of movies, and adds some detail.

[Varnafindë]

"* Soon after Arwen's arrival, she meets Aragorn, as described in App A."

That would have to be condensed as well.

She meets him twice. First when he's twenty - he falls for her, but she sees him only as a boy.

Then the second time is at least thirty years later (and I think after Elrond has named the bride-price) - he's about fifty, he's a hardened adventurer and warrior, and now she finally sees him as a great lord and falls for him.

Great literary stuff, but too drawn out for a movie (other than the BIG WAY movie that I would like to see as well, but we're still a limited audience ). But with a little more messing with the timeline, it should be no problem.

[Earniel]

Hm, the Hobbit would definitely be the very wrong movie to go shoehorning Aragorn's and Arwen's romance into it, if you ask me. I could see a few hints, perhaps the inclusion of a shot of the library with the shards of Narsil present. Or maybe Bilbo running past Gilraen and young Aragorn (non-speaking parts) and just wondering that there are Men living in Rivendell. But beyond that? They'll have enough scenes to come up with for the White Council plot. I just can't see them including actual Aragorn-scenes here.

But this ought to be fairly easy to check if this story-line will be included, is Liv Tyler included in the Hobbit movie cast? And has there been an actor named to play young Aragorn? Otherwise, no show.

[Valandil]

Varna - I meant just the part where he's 20. At least show his new-found interest in Arwen.

Earniel - unless they're trying real hard to keep this under the radar. Even to avoid having people say, "(So-and-so) is cast as Aragorn! NO WAY he'll be 10 years old! @#$%^&* Peter Jackson!!! "

[Varnafindë]

I see - and leave it open for this movie whether or not she gets more interested later.

It would be nice - but I fear that Eärniel is right that they wouldn't take the time for including all those scenes ...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Earniel - unless they're trying real hard to keep this under the radar. Even to avoid having people say, "(So-and-so) is cast as Aragorn! NO WAY he'll be 10 years old! @#$%^&* Peter Jackson!!! "

You can dream; my friend. But I don't think this would be one of the things they'd keep secret. Casting is one of the most difficult things to keep secret, unless they use a totally unknown character. And if they'd keep things like that under wraps, they wouldn't have announced the casting of Evangeline Lily as a sparkly new character.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

I see - and leave it open for this movie whether or not she gets more interested later.

It would be nice - but I fear that Eärniel is right that they wouldn't take the time for including all those scenes ...

I was just hoping... you know, if the Extended Editions are around 4 hours each, there could be 7 1/2 to 8 hours of movie time. And the book is shorter than any of the three LOTR books, so I thought it'd be nice of them to include some of this stuff I want.

[GrayMouser]

These two movies are starting to sound more and more like "What _________ thinks JRR Tolkien should have written instead of writing "The Hobbit"."

[The Gaffer]

I don't mind what they do as long as Viggo is nowhere to be seen.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

These two movies are starting to sound more and more like "What _________ thinks JRR Tolkien should have written instead of writing "The Hobbit"."

Sorry if I sound that way to you. Everything I want to see though, Tolkien either wrote or hinted at. And with the amount of time possible from 2 movies, it'd be fun to see more of what JRRT wrote than just what is contained between the front & back covers of The Hobbit.

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

These two movies are starting to sound more and more like "What _________ thinks JRR Tolkien should have written instead of writing "The Hobbit"."

If you mean the two movies as described in this thread, we've only discussed what additions to "The Hobbit" there might be room for.

And all of those we've suggested so far are things that Tolkien wrote after writing "The Hobbit". I don't think he would have written about any Third Age at all if he hadn't been persuaded to write "more about Hobbits", and then had developed a backstory for the Ring, and for Elrond.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Sorry if I sound that way to you. Everything I want to see though, Tolkien either wrote or hinted at. And with the amount of time possible from 2 movies, it'd be fun to see more of what JRRT wrote than just what is contained between the front & back covers of The Hobbit.

Yea, sorry, that was a little cranky- and of course I don't mean the Tolkien-lovers and experts found on the Moot

If you mean the two movies as described in this thread, we've only discussed what additions to "The Hobbit" there might be room for.

And all of those we've suggested so far are things that Tolkien wrote after writing "The Hobbit". I don't think he would have written about any Third Age at all if he hadn't been persuaded to write "more about Hobbits", and then had developed a backstory for the Ring, and for Elrond.

My meaning is I want to see a movie called "The Hobbit", based totally (or as much as possible) on the trip Bilbo Baggins took with the Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain.

If PJ or anybody else also wants to make another movie using other material from the same time, go for it.

What I don't want to see is it all lumped together, cut in half, and called "The Hobbit Part 1 + 2".

We cut from Bilbo and the Dwarves atBbeorn's House to the White Council to Saruman to rangers fighting Orcs- end of Part One.

Part 2 - through Mirkwood to Smaug to the Battle of Five Armies intercut with the White Council using staves as flamethrowers to chase The Necromancer out of Dol Guldur

I wanna see "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again"

[GrayMouser]

Having checked out a few sites (especially checking the cast list) things may have turned out all right. Fingers crossed.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Earniel - unless they're trying real hard to keep this under the radar. Even to avoid having people say, "(So-and-so) is cast as Aragorn! NO WAY he'll be 10 years old! @#$%^&* Peter Jackson!!! "

You actually had me worried for a second so I went to check out the cast list. No Liv Tyler in sight, so the Aragorn/Arwen-in-the-Hobbit does look out of the window. Yet there was a young boy listed (unconfirmed if he's actually cast) without a character-name. But the IMDB attributed the role of Bain to him, which would suggest that either they're considering at least one scene in the movie after Dale is re-established and Bard is king with an heir, or that movie-Bard had kids before the destruction of Laketown.

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I wanna see "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again"

I see - not "Part 1 - There" and "Part 2 - Back Again"

[The Gaffer]

What about "Part 1 - There and Back", "Part 2 - Again"??

I'll get me coat.

[Mark of Cenla]

I would not mind their adding some stuff that was written later that happened in the same time frame. Would what comes between the front and back covers of The Hobbit be enough material for two movies? I have read it nine times, so I just want to know what all of you think. Peace and goodwill.

[The Gaffer]

I am cool with that in principle, Mark. However the stuff that was inserted into the LOTR films was the weakest IMO, so I would probably tend to be somewhat sceptical about it.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

These two movies are starting to sound more and more like "What _________ thinks JRR Tolkien should have written instead of writing "The Hobbit"."

Such is the way of all movie adaptions of prose.
Or better put, movies are a different media than novels, and screenplays need to take that into account. Common elements of said adation are composite charactors, compression of time, focus on the more visually interenting scenes of the story, focus on more visually interesting charactors (such as hot babes and funny looking sidekicks, pacing of the movie, different expected audience tastes etc.