Aragorn vs movie Aragorn

[ArathornJax]

No comment . . . .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

...

[Siberian]

I dislike Aragorn in the movies. He's decent as Strider but fails short of Isildur's heir. Aragorn in the books is both humble and dignified, has served Middle-earth selflessly in different capacities, loves creatures big and small, loyal, wise, knowledgeable, steadfast, faithful to the love of his life, competent war leader. He might seem archetypal, but is saved from being too perfect by his self-doubts before and right after the breaking of the fellowship, some irony and his down-to-earth moments with hobbits and pipe-weed He's never weak, discourteous or immoral. I never expected to see the full rich backstory of Aragorn and Dúnedain. I expected simplification, but not so many ignoble moments and a characters arch that doesn't make any sense.

And don't tell me that it couldn't be made. Because they didn't even try. They honestly think that the mess their 'created' makes more sense than even the barebones version of book Aragorn's story. What's sad is that many book fans believe in that too.

[yovargas]

I agree that his characterization was ultimately a bit of a mess. Could've been much better. But I still found him a more interest person then the non-person Tolkien gave us.

[Siberian]

I really don't see why a hero has to be "flawed" (and dishonorable, and vacillating, and discourteous) to be interesting. Yes, he's an ideal, but he's also warm, enigmatic, sad. Personally, I was always intrigued by Aragorn's past.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

How do people have a problem with an enigmatic hero figure as personified by Aragorn yet lap up movie action heroes made of cardboard? Does anyone find Shane boring? What character arc does Gary Cooper go through in High Noon?
In the book Aragorn is driven by duty, a duty tempered and made poignant by a love he cannot talk about. Some of that survives into the movie.

Come on, Prim. Wouldn't you pay money see the fellowship beat the password out of Gimli?

Check out my version

[Siberian]

People confuse characterization with character arc. It's not even Aragorn's story. His story is actually more important in the context of the ME mythology than within the events of the book.

[Primula Baggins]

I think people also confuse preference with judgment, when we're talking about Aragorn. He doesn't interest me much, but I wouldn't change a word of what Tolkien wrote. Aragorn fulfills his role in the story just fine without any serious flaws, any "arc," or much of a visible internal life. A "rounded" character in that role would pull LotR off balance, I now think. I wasn't always so patient, but I've written quite a bit more fiction myself since those days—I better understand the balancing act any long, involved story must pull off.

Nevertheless, of the range of possibilities, as a reader I find characters with visible flaws and doubts more interesting. Not "better," not "right for every role in a story"—just more interesting to me. Fortunately, there are two fine examples of such characters in LotR: Frodo and Sam.

[Siberian]

Personally, I was always more fond of Faramir (who is in some ways a more accessible version of Aragorn the Dúnadan). I've started to appreciate Aragorn more recently.

[Frelga]

I really don't get how book Aragorn is a non-person. He is a higly moral person but a complex character nonetheless. Perhaps people these days feel... I am looking for a nice way to say it... Well, instead of looking up to a highly moral, heroic character and seeing someone to emulate to an extent possible, some modern readers feel that it's too much bother and search for a character they can look down upon?

That explains why such readers are not put our by superheroes. We can't emulate a Superhero - we don't
have the powers that they do. Instead such a hero is someone who will step in and fix things for us, like Mom doing the laundry.

[Siberian]

I've been told that there's a growing movement for more "grittiness" and "realism". Not simplistic 'black' & 'white' like Tolkien To be considered adult and mature, characters have to curse, sleep around and kill anyone who annoys them (like, you know, an emissary during the parley). Honor is for the losers. Just ask Martin's fans

[Primula Baggins]

He's not a non-person at all. And he's got a complex history. And of course I admire his high morals. But part of that integrity and wisdom means that he is what he is, all through LotR; there are almost no surprises in his actions, for good or for ill, as there are in the actions of lesser men (and women, and hobbits). So for me he is more a part of the background of the story than part of the cast of characters. It doesn't mean I don't admire him, and it doesn't mean I don't think he's essential. I just appreciate him in the same way I appreciate Middle-earth itself as a "character" in the book.

Edit: Anyone calling Tolkien's characters as a whole "black" and "white" in their degrees of good and evil probably has never bothered to read the book—as indeed why should they? It's got elves and fairies, not grown-up stuff.

But I don't think Aragorn, as an example, would be more interesting if he did despicable things. In PJ's film he does in fact do that (killing the Mouth of Sauron under a flag of truce) and it makes him far less interesting.

And, there are other ways to make characters interesting than to make them weak and reprehensible. It is possible to "round out" a character by playing up unusual virtues, for example, or by giving him an interesting history.

[yovargas]

It has nothing to do with him being "good" or dutiful or whatever. He's just a boring character (to most people (I suspect)). Characterization was not Tolkien's strong suit, simple as that. I also don't see his reluctance to take in the films as adding "flaws" since that is, more often than not, a virtuous trait.

[Frelga]

Yov, it's not often that I see a post on this forum with which I disagree on every count, but yours is it.

Siberian, dobro pozhalovat'
For grittiness and realism in fantasy heroes that is done well I go to Pratchett. He has little guys flawed from here to there yet with some moral boundary they wouldn't cross, some line beyond which they would take a stand and give it all.

[Primula Baggins]

That's what's interesting, for my money: when a flawed character faces a threat that brings out the courage and integrity that have always been there. This can't happen to Aragorn, because he's already learned that lesson, decades before LotR begins. He already is what more traditional heroes don't become until the end of their "character arcs."

[yovargas]

Yov, it's not often that I see a post on this forum with which I disagree on every count, but yours is it.

But seriously - Aragorn understood how power could corrupt so he did not want power. How is this a "character flaw"?

[Primula Baggins]

As the heir, he has the duty to serve. Refusing that duty is a character flaw.

[Impenitent]

Prim, I think that is Aragorn's 'overlooked' character arc

Just as the story of the Ring begins long before LoTR, so does the story and development of Aragorn. We see a small slice in LoTR, and we have only a hint of how it began for him in the Appendices.

If we take all the writings as a whole, Aragorn has a very well developed character arc.

However, I must protest your characterisation of him as background in the flow of LoTR. Lone wolf Strider morphing into captain of the Dúnedain Aragorn morphing into General/King was always, always, the character whose fortunes I most closely followed. Frodo and Sam were the ostensible heroes, and I loved them, but Aragorn was my hero.

[yovargas]

As the heir, he has the duty to serve. Refusing that duty is a character flaw.

Interesting point. But is it wrong to question whether your duty is the right thing to do?

[Siberian]

Yov, it's not often that I see a post on this forum with which I disagree on every count, but yours is it.

But seriously - Aragorn understood how power could corrupt so he did not want power. How is this a "character flaw"?

Isildur's weakness is not in being a king, but in claiming the Ring (i.e. succumbing to the Evil) - as shown in the movie, that is. But Aragorn in the movies resists the Ring. What he is afraid of (apparently, it's not quite clear), is becoming a legitimate leader who could unite the peoples of Middle-earth for the last stand against Mordor, even though the wise (Gandalf and Elrond) think he's the only one who can do it. This means that he's unsure of himself at best or a coward at the worst. This is definitely a flaw in a hero. I guess this is meant to be a weakness that Aragorn overcomes later, but it's not followed through consistently. Add to that lack of good manners or courtesy (introduction to the hobbits, beating Théoden's guard), "King as a healer" test (very important!) and you get a very different Aragorn.