Skip to main content

the lord of the rings - Has Peter Jackson revealed why he changed the character of Aragorn?


Now that I have almost finished reading The Lord of the Rings, one of the differences between the books and movies puzzles me more than any other: In the books, Aragorn always intended, and expected, to claim the throne of Gondor - he even carries the Shards of Narsil around with him. He probably wants to become King for other reasons as well, but he also has to become king before Elrond will allow him to marry Arwen. No one who knows him ever doubts that he will be king, and Narsil is remade before he even leaves Rivendell.


In the movies, he is reluctant to claim the throne, to put it mildly. He is more committed to his role as a Ranger. He barely even touches Narsil before it is reforged. He avoids giving the impression that he is interested in the throne. No one who knows him, except Arwen and perhaps Gandalf, thinks he will ever be more than a Ranger. Elrond only reforges Narsil after Arwen forces him to choose between fixing the sword or watching his own daughter die. Aragorn only seems to come around to the idea of taking the throne after the story, and the war, are almost over. Arwen's emotional blackmail of her father was also emotional blackmail of Aragorn - if he hadn't accepted the sword, and by extension, the throne, he'd have a dead girlfriend on his conscience.



Overall, in my opinion, Jackson made Aragorn seem hesitant, indecisive, weak, and reliant on the influence of others to make decisions. Imagine being a citizen of Gondor and knowing that your king wasn't sure he wanted to be your leader. In the books, Aragorn has his moments of doubt, but always regarding how to go about the quest of the Fellowship, never about whether or not he would claim the throne one day.


I assume Jackson was thinking about a character arc, character development, leading the audience along the path of Aragorn's rise to greatness, etc. But has he ever commented on this subject explicitly?



Answer



I can think of a few main reasons, though I also am not aware if Jackson ever said so:




  1. To make sure everyone sees Frodo (and by proxy, Sam) as the hero(s) of the film. This simplifies it for a film audience, and focuses the story more on the destruction of the Ring.




  2. To enhance the love story, and to give Arwen more import to the story. He thankfully thought better of having her fighting at Helm's Deep. I wish he had also thought better of the whole "Arwen's dying" thing. I did think her saving Frodo at the Ford of Brunien was a nice adjustment, however.





  3. Putting Aragorn in his rightful historical place would require a lot of explanation of the sort that is not very good for movie pacing.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed....
Post a Comment
Read more

story identification - Animation: floating island, flying pests

At least 20 years ago I watched a short animated film which stuck in my mind. The whole thing was wordless, possibly European, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it... It featured a flying island which was inhabited by some creatures who (in my memory) reminded me of the Moomins. The island was frequently bothered by large winged animals who swooped around, although I don't think they did any actual damage. At the end one of the moomin creatures suddenly gets a weird feeling, feels forced to climb to the top of the island and then plunges down a shaft right through the centre - only to emerge at the bottom as one of the flyers. Answer Skywhales from 1983. The story begins with a man warning the tribe of approaching skywhales. The drummers then warn everybody of the hunt as everyone get prepared to set "sail". Except one man is found in his home sleeping as the noise wake him up. He then gets ready and is about to take his weapon as he hesitates then decides ...
Post a Comment
Read more