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

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

game of thrones - Is Syrio Forel dead?

In the episode 'The Pointy End' (Season 1 Episode 8) when Arya runs from the Lannister guards you hear the sound of a sword being dropped (around 4:56): [embedded content] After that neither Syrio or Ser Meryn Trant is never mentioned or seen in the show again, except when Arya mentions to the Hound that Ser Meryn Trant killed Syrio. Is there any mention in the books that Syrio actually dies?

tolkiens legendarium - Difference between elves and dwarves blacksmithing in the Lord of the Rings

Both the elves and the dwarves were famous for their metal work in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but what is the difference between what they made, and which one had the better skill of making amours and swords? Answer James Christopher's answer sums up the second part of your question well, but as to the difference in what they made, a little more detail is needed. Once the Elves learned to forge with steel, the shape of the sword changed, now being able to take on the form of a great broadsword or a light and agile curved sword. Additionally, they took great pride in decorating their swords. As we see in the Lord of the Rings , some swords like Sting had magical properties such as glowing blue when orcs are near. As far as the use of Mithril, lotr.wikia has two contradictory passages: Thus, Elven blades became renowned as great weapons, capable of performing deeds beyond the skill of their handlers and were even more glorious when the use of Mithril was allowed to the Elves. ...

How do Pokemon trainers collect their winnings?

According to Bulbapedia , Prize money is the money that a Trainer pays out at the end of a battle. So we know that the money comes directly from the trainer that just lost, and not some third-party committee or sponsor. But how is this done? It can be easy seeing the random trainers who challenge you along the way wanting to wager and then, after admitting defeat, sticking to their word and handing over their hard-earned pokebucks. Then there are the likes of Team Rocket and Giovanni, who also give money once they lose. This doesn't seem like something people in a criminal organization would willingly do. From this it appears that trainers have no say in whether or not they cough up the dough after losing, but I can't find anything on how exactly the funds are transferred from loser to winner. So how do Pokemon trainers receive their winnings?