Aragorn Conflict

[Talimon]

Talimon- If my sarcastometer is right in this matter, than jallan may not actually think that movie-Aragorn is perfect.

I'll wait for jallan to acknowledge that. I didn't sense any sarcasm, but maybe my srcastometer is out of date.

Let's take a look at Elrond's quote, "He chose exile long ago."

If that is the case, then we can safely conclude that Aragorn's decision to so vehemently reject the kingship is simply because he doesn't want it, not because he's afraid of Isildur's weakness in him. To me, this whole "weakness" thing is a secondary reason once the ring pops up.

I don't think the fear of failure is only due to the ring. It is due to the lust of power inherent in men in general. The way I see it, Aragorn doesn't want to be king due in part to a backlash against Isildur (and men in general). The scene on the banks of the Anduin with Boromir made this backlash clear. Boromir accuses Aragorn of having "so little faith in your own people." The way Viggo played that scene tells me that Aragorn is not denying this claim; in his heart he knows there is some truth in it.

And Aragorn's whole "dumping" of Arwen is also a confusion. Why? Because it is made quite plain in both mediums that Aragorn CANNOT claim Arwen unless he is king.

I agree with aragil here. When was it made clear that Aragorn couldn't marry Arwen unless he became king? I don't even think it was suggested.

 

[jallan]

Yes, Jackson makes Aragorn more perfect.

Book-Aragorn has a personal motive: to gain book-Arwen's hand he must gain the kingship. Also, he probably would like to be king for its own sake. Most people would. There is no indication that the Chief of the Dúnedain of the North rejects power.

The dream that book-Boromir relates at the Council provides an excuse for book-Aragorn to make an attempt for the kingship. Book-Aragorn makes it clear to book-Boromir that if he wants the sword to go south, then book-Aragorn, as Heir of Isildur and proper owner of the sword, will go with it.

Of course, book-Aragorn does not mention he intends to seek the kingship, and when book-Bilbo recites the kingship poem book-Bilbo has composed about book-Aragorn, book-Aragorn changes the subject and begins nattering about the home of the heirs of Isildur, such as these poor impoverished Rangers have, is in the north.

I don't think that book-Boromir is ever supposed to catch on to book-Aragorn's undeclared agenda. Book-Faramir seems quicker on the uptake.

Book-Gandalf is in on the plot

He explains to the astonished book- Pippin that if book-Aragorn comes to Minas Tirith, it will be to claim the kingship.

Denethor also knows what is in the wind.

Jackson saw that Tolkien need not have stained book-Aragorn's heroism by showing him ready to play the Sauron/Gondor war for his own benefit.

For in the the end, the crown actualy comes to book-Aragorn without his making any effort directly to obtain it, other than setting out with the sword along with Boromir to go to Minas Tirith.

For book-Aragorn gets sidetracked at Amon Hen, and by the time he finally arrives in Minas Tirith, Boromir is dead, Denethor dies soon after, Faramir, saved by Aragorn's hand, becomes his devoted admirer, as does the Prince of Dol Amroth and presumably most other lords.

They fall over themselves to give Aragorn the kingship without Aragorn having to do anything himself directly.

If Aragorn is going to gain the crown in any case, despite any intent on his part, Jackson might as well remove book-Aragorn's intent in the matter and with it any hint that Aragorn is trying to profit from the war.

Jackson can go even further and have movie-Aragorn uninterested in claiming the kingship.

This doesn't have too much effect on the plot if other matters are identical, since book-Aragorn, who was interested in claiming the kingship apparently found no reasonable opening to do so.

Movie-Elrond has laid no demand on movie-Aragorn to seek the kingship, though movie-Arwen hopes that eventually movie-Aragorn will gain the kingship.

Jackson removes the prophecy of the sword from the tale so that movie-Aragorn sets out with the Fellowship for pure, altruistic motives, intending to accompany Frodo to Mordor, not considering going anywhere near Minas Tirith.

But Frodo's departure at Amon Hen frees movie-Aragorn from going to Mordor, indeed prevents him from following, and then the dying movie-Boromir lays on him the obligation to save the White City if he can, taking him as his king.

Movie-Aragorn accepts.

He takes up this new burden, to do what he can to aid Minas Tirith, but certainly not intending to seek kingship.

Where book-Aragorn is secretly striving for the kingship on the basis of a not absolutely clear claim to the throne, movie-Aragorn, generally recognized as the rightful heir to the kingship, actually chooses Exile, wants no part of the kingship.

Why should movie-Aragorn start playing politics? In the book Minas Tirith seems well governed under Denethor. Presumably this is so in the film also, though movie-Boromir's reference to the rule of movie-Denethor failing might refer to something other than Sauron.

Movie-Aragorn will come to Minas Tirith for altruistic reasons undefiled by any political desire whatsover, but of course, everyone, as in the book, will just insist he must remain and rule them, and since they all want it so badly, and he is the rightful heir after all, movie-Aragorn will humbly agree.

Movie-Aragorn, though aggressively pursued by movie-Arwen, takes the Path of Exile there also. Movie-Aragorn never puts himself first, even in love.

Eventually movie-Arwen will force her love on him (not that he doesn't want it: he is just so unselfish).

Movie-Aragorn fears one thing only, power and its ability to corrupt. Naturally he humbly and sincerely doubts his own ability to resist corruption.

But in fact, as I noted in my previous post, despite movie-Aragorn's self-doubts, we see no sign that movie-Aragorn wants the Ring any more than does book-Aragorn.

Aragorn (book and movie) could have taken the Ring from Frodo at any time. There is no indication in book or movie that he ever thought of such a thing.

But doubts about one's own ability to resist evil are worthy of a saint, especially when warned by Isildur's fate that anyone may fall. Movie-Arwen's prophecy that he will meet the same evil and Isilur but he will prevail really won't come exactly true.

Movie-Aragorn will never hold the Ring, will never possess it, never be in a position himself to cast it away.

He will never be seriously tempted to take it either, though he obviously has many opportunites. Movie-Aragorn will instead face probable death alone against fifty Orcs to allow the chosen Ring-bearer to escape.

At the time of his doubts movie-Aragorn is already facing the evil and prevailing quite easily.

Aragil posted:

Is there a pertinent difference between these two that I am missing?
If Tolkien had included a description of the Northerners trying to claim the throne and failing, then I'd be completely satisfied. It is with those who never tried that I have a problem.

My quotation from Appendix A relates to events after the disappearance and presumed death of Eärnur, and therefore disproves your contention that no-one pressed a claim after Eärnur's death. There were some who did, but none of the claim garnered sufficient support from all parties.

Tolkien gives no details about these claims, whether Aranarth was or was not one of those who made a claim at that time, or whether or not the previous claim of the northern line by Arvedui came up on occasion in the debates.

Talimon posted:

In fact, there weren't any histories around when LotR was published in the first place. As such, how can we blame PJ for details that even Tolkien himself did not cover?

The Appendices were published in the first edition of The Lord of the Rings. Even without the Appendices, the main narrative gives a reasonable account of the decline and disappearance of Arnor and the continued existance of the Dúnedain of the North under chieftains descended from Isildur, Aragorn being the current chieftain.

I can and do both blame and praise PJ for many things, many not connected to whether his accounts are identical or not to Tolkien's or whether he is or is not convering details not covered by Tolkien.

If movie-Aragorn is the rightful king of Gondor but another now rules the land, the question of why this is so obviously arises.

So far Jackson has given no answer.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by jallan
Yes, Jackson makes Aragorn more perfect.

Stupid worthless sarcastometer.

Originally posted by jallan
So far Jackson has given no answer.

I'd say this is intentionally so. I've been guessing all along that we'll get the Aragorn backstory in RotK. Elrond's "He chose exile" and Boromir's "This is Isildur's heir" are far too leading of comments not to have further explanation, IMO. I think that when Aragorn does finally decide to take the throne, we'll become privy to whatever other demons have been holding him back. Of course, I could be wrong, but it does seem to be Jackson's style of story-telling. In FotR we never understood Aragorn's glance to Arwen when the Fellowship left Rivendell- now (after TT) we have a little more insight.

Originally posted by jallan
My quotation from Appendix A relates to events after the disappearance and presumed death of Eärnur, and therefore disproves your contention that no-one pressed a claim after Eärnur's death. There were some who did, but none of the claim garnered sufficient support from all parties.
Tolkien gives no details about these claims, whether Aranarth was or was not one of those who made a claim at that time, or whether or not the previous claim of the northern line by Arvedui came up on occasion in the debates.

I don't think this disproves my contention- I acknowledged that claims were made by those who didn't have either the full support of the people or who weren't of pure blood. However, nothing in Tolkien's description makes me think that he's referring to Aranath and the Northern Line. Again:

from Appendix A
Now the descendants of the kings had become few. Their numbers had been greatly diminished in the Kin-strife; whereas since that time the kings had become jealous and watchful of those near akin. Often those on whom suspicion fell had fled to Umbar and there joined the rebels; while others had renounced their lineage and taken wives not of Númenorean blood. So it was that no claimant to the crown could be found who was of pure blood, or whose claim all would allow; and all feared the memory of the Kin-strife, knowing that if any such dissension arose again, then Gondor would perish.

Tolkien describes heirs who either flee to Umbar or who have married non-Numenoreans. Both of these seem to imply that he is talking about the Southern line, since, as far as I know, neither of these were practices in the North.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, of course, the biggest problem is trying to determine the motives of the film's Aragorn according to what happened historically in the book since that simply can't be done. To begin with, there is no "northern kingdom" in the film, so anything arising out of that has to be discarded instantly.

Secondly, in the film, Boromir is aware that an heir to Isildur still lives. In the book, that is not widely known in the South - if it's known at all except for Denethor who does not "know" exactly, but suspects that his father's young counselor Thorongil was more than he appeared. So, again, the film is working from an entirely different premise. We may assume in ROTK, that Aragorn's appearance and heritage will be no "news" to the film's Denethor either and in fact to just about everybody else if Boromir could toss off the remark as casually as he did (so you're the guy!).

There is no doubt that Jackson's handling of Narsil-still-not-Anduril is the criteria by which we may judge where (and when) he is developing this particular plot thread. Narsil will certainly be the indication that Aragorn has changed his mind and decided to go for the gold. However, what I am interested in learning is how Jackson is going to bring the news "back to Rivendell" so that the sword can be re-forged. Remember, this isn't just a matter of picking the thing up and transporting it somewhere. First it has to be re-forged and what reason would Elrond have to do that if he still believes that Aragorn remains in his "self imposed exile". On the other hand, how is Jackson going to reveal Aragorn's change of heart and mind without blowing the tension?

So here is another of the Director's self inflicted conundrums: the sword re-forged will be the talisman which indicates that Aragorn has decided to be King after all. But why reforge the sword if they think he still doesn't want it? And how are they going to become aware that it should be reforged and brought to the man, especially given how dangerous the whole place is becoming. This isn't a time for "bearing gifts" when huge armies are all around doing serious damage to all and sundry. Someone is going to have to bring news to Elrond in Rivendell (where the sword is located) that it's time to reforge the thing because Aragorn has grown up and is now willing to be king! Who's going to do that? And how will that person be privy to that knowledge? I can't imagine the film Aragorn going about doing a Hamlet: "to be King or not to be King, that is the question!" so who is going to know enough to take the news back to Rivendell to get the forges going?

Boy, ROTK is going to be interesting! Maybe not accurate or satisfying, but certainly interesting.

 

[Remnant]

aragorns conflict ...

When I first saw TTT I was confused about the scene where Aragorn tries to give back the evenstar pendant ... It drove me to tears trying to figure out why he was rejecting her. My children told me not to worry ... Pj always goes back to Tolkien's writings.


Now I look on it a little differently, as I reread parts of the books ... and watched the fellowship dvd a few times. I believe that PJ is making his Aragorn more human and more unselfish for the screen.
The book Aragorn is always King, and always has Narsil, and always will have Arwen. No growth ... he's there already ... movie Aragorn is so very touching and real!

To put book Aragorn on the screen wouldn't work. Pj is putting more human conflict in the characters so that the ending will be more triumphant.

In the end of RotK ... you WILL KNOW exactly what everyone gave up to be together. What everyone lost.
Book Arwen is not very developed ... I love movie Arwen .. she is giving up everything for Aragorn ..

Also in TTT they gave Eowyn a reason to dream ... book Eowyn has little contact with Aragorn { and he practically ignors her}

Now her heartbreak and change will be understood more fully ... she will see { and so will we} she has no chance with Aragorn ... His love for Arwen will be seen!!!! In the book it comes off cruel because she doesn't know about Arwen.

I actually think that PJ has fleshed out very beautifully Tolkien's work ... the actors are really great in making the character's so real ...

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I am sorry, really I am, but I cannot buy this business that Jackson "fleshed out" the characters and that Tolkien's were somehow "pre-packaged" and ready to step into the climax of the film without any kind of development through the story. I think it has been shown that the book Aragorn was in fact conflicted. He could not marry his beloved without being king of both kingdoms, but he could not do that while Sauron remained the most powerful force in Middle-earth. In fact, it appeared to be all over for the Ranger until the Ring appeared. Only then was there any hope (slim to none) of the Dark Lord being ultimately defeated and his chance come to get both the throne and the lady.

Meanwhile, Aragorn not only had to bring the hobbits safely from Bree to Rivendell without the Wizard (whose help he was expecting), but then help defend them as he went south with Boromir to fight for Gondor in order to begin to establish his "credentials" for an eventual bid for the vacant throne of that country. Of course, Gandalf's apparent "fall" in Moria put all of that on hold as did the events at Parth Galen. From that point until the destruction of the Ring, it would seem to me that Aragorn has enough on his plate just surviving! At no time is any of this a "shoo-in" and at any moment a well aimed arrow or some other weapon could take his life; he isn't exactly staying home in comfort and safety.

Jackson wanted to make his Aragorn far more "female driven" than Tolkien's character. He wanted the man's strength to originate not from his own personality, training and heritage, but from Arwen who seemed to be constantly cajoling and canoodling him along that he wasn't bad old Isildur at all, but sweet, wonderful Aragorn. I'm sorry. As a woman of a different era, I don't feel it necessary to build up my sex by knocking down the fellas. I much prefer a man who is a man and not some fellow who needs his "better half" to encourage him and boost his spirits so he can get on with his life. I realize that this is simply my preference, but there it is!

 

[Remnant]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
[Jackson wanted to make his Aragorn far more "female driven" than Tolkien's character. He wanted the man's strength to originate not from his own personality, training and heritage, but from Arwen who seemed to be constantly cajoling and canoodling him along that he wasn't bad old Isildur at all, but sweet, wonderful Aragorn. I'm sorry. As a woman of a different era, I don't feel it necessary to build up my sex by knocking down the fellas. I much prefer a man who is a man and not some fellow who needs his "better half" to encourage him and boost his spirits so he can get on with his life. I realize that this is simply my preference, but there it is! [/B]

I do not agree, so we can agree to disagree.
Marriage is a partnership of two people with common goals. Arwen is already his partner ... they have been together for 50 or so years ... I do not believe that makes him weak ... I believe that Pj is showing all of the relationship ... it's strength and it's weaknesses.
I think when we see Rotk we will see the complete tapestry and it will be closer to tolkien than it seems now ...

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Narsil will certainly be the indication that Aragorn has changed his mind and decided to go for the gold. However, what I am interested in learning is how Jackson is going to bring the news "back to Rivendell" so that the sword can be re-forged. Remember, this isn't just a matter of picking the thing up and transporting it somewhere. First it has to be re-forged and what reason would Elrond have to do that if he still believes that Aragorn remains in his "self imposed exile". On the other hand, how is Jackson going to reveal Aragorn's change of heart and mind without blowing the tension?

I don't see this as being too much of a problem, as we've already been given tastes of "Elf magic" capable of communicating over distances. The way I see it, we have two options:
1) Elrond- Elrond either learns of Aragorn's decision (ala the Galadriel-Elrond conversation re. Faramir), or intuits it. The second could certainly be the case, especially with that long look he gave the Isildur-Sauron painting in TT.

2) Arwen- I think Arwen has more credibility for intuiting Aragorn's intentions. First of all, we have the scene where she is 'present' for Aragorn's 'reviving' in TT. Also, we have scenes from some of the trailers which weren't in the movie, scenes of Arwen running to the Narsil shrine. Perhaps she is going to retrieve the sword and bring it to Aragorn? After all, in the books she seemed to intuit Aragorn's need for the banner, and there is no evidence that her weaving of the banner was initiated by anyone other than her own self.

With either of the above, the re-forging can be accomplished without a messenger running to Rivendell. Some may call this use of Elf Magic cheating, but even the good professor was guilty of such plot devices, so I think we needn't boggle too much. Then again, perhaps MM's scenario will play out- I must admit I really have no idea.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Jackson wanted to make his Aragorn far more "female driven" than Tolkien's character. He wanted the man's strength to originate not from his own personality, training and heritage, but from Arwen who seemed to be constantly cajoling and canoodling him along that he wasn't bad old Isildur at all, but sweet, wonderful Aragorn. I'm sorry. As a woman of a different era, I don't feel it necessary to build up my sex by knocking down the fellas. I much prefer a man who is a man and not some fellow who needs his "better half" to encourage him and boost his spirits so he can get on with his life. I realize that this is simply my preference, but there it is!

I respect that you have a different opinion on this, but is book Aragorn really that independent? I have the utmost respect for the guy, but even in the book he acknowledges that others had a great (if not the greater) part in him becoming King, which is why he has Frodo bring him the crown and Gandalf place it on his head. I think that movie-Aragorn can also stand on his own two feet, but expecting him to accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished in order for him to be king without any outside help is a bit much. Personally, whether Arwen is weavinng a banner to help him become King, or simply encouraging him during one of his dark moments, the difference just ain't that big. Remember, there is the quote from the books:

from Appendix A, the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen
'And Arwen said: "Dark is the Shadow, and yet my heart rejoices; for you, Estel, shall be among the great whose valour will destroy it."
' But Aragorn answered: "Alas! I cannot foresee it, and how lit may come to pass is hidden from me. Yet with your hope I will hope. And the Shadow I utterly reject."

Is this pep-talk substantially different than in the movie where Arwen says "You will face the same evil, and defeat it"?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by aragil
I don't see this as being too much of a problem, as we've already been given tastes of "Elf magic" capable of communicating over distances. The way I see it, we have two options:
1) Elrond- Elrond either learns of Aragorn's decision (ala the Galadriel-Elrond conversation re. Faramir), or intuits it. The second could certainly be the case, especially with that long look he gave the Isildur-Sauron painting in TT.

2) Arwen- I think Arwen has more credibility for intuiting Aragorn's intentions. First of all, we have the scene where she is 'present' for Aragorn's 'reviving' in TT. Also, we have scenes from some of the trailers which weren't in the movie, scenes of Arwen running to the Narsil shrine. Perhaps she is going to retrieve the sword and bring it to Aragorn? After all, in the books she seemed to intuit Aragorn's need for the banner, and there is no evidence that her weaving of the banner was initiated by anyone other than her own self.

With either of the above, the re-forging can be accomplished without a messenger running to Rivendell. Some may call this use of Elf Magic cheating, but even the good professor was guilty of such plot devices, so I think we needn't boggle too much. Then again, perhaps MM's scenario will play out- I must admit I really have no idea.

I respect that you have a different opinion on this, but is book Aragorn really that independent? I have the utmost respect for the guy, but even in the book he acknowledges that others had a great (if not the greater) part in him becoming King, which is why he has Frodo bring him the crown and Gandalf place it on his head. I think that movie-Aragorn can also stand on his own two feet, but expecting him to accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished in order for him to be king without any outside help is a bit much. Personally, whether Arwen is weavinng a banner to help him become King, or simply encouraging him during one of his dark moments, the difference just ain't that big. Remember, there is the quote from the books: Is this pep-talk substantially different than in the movie where Arwen says "You will face the same evil, and defeat it"?

As for "learning about it", I dare say something will be formulated - maybe G's mirror.

Yes, Aragorn certainly acknowledges that it was through the efforts of many that he came to his throne, but those efforts did not include talking him into it in the first place.

Also, it's quite different to be given a "pep talk" in moments of depression and needing the woman in your life to beef up your manhood. Not only does Jackson's Aragorn refuse quite clearly his heritage and birthright (while Tolkien's Aragorn merely refuses utterly "the shadow") but he even turns away Arwen, for heaven's sake - albeit in what he believes to be in her best interests! Where in the book does Aragorn do that?

I frankly do not see any real correlation between the Arwen who tells Aragorn at Weathertop that she should take the bearer because she can ride faster (whatever that may mean since it is the horse who does the running) while he just meekly backs down and sends her into danger, and the relationship you just quoted from the book. I can just imagine what Tolkien's Aragorn would have said to Arwen had she suggested that he "step aside" and "let her do it" under those circumstances - and to be perfectly honest, they do not mirror the film's interpretation of that particular event!

 

[aragil]

To take it from another angle, what would Luthien say to Beren if he told her that it was best that he should go alone, because, after all, he was the man? I think Luthien would have had none of it, and we're told by Tolkien that Arwen is 'very like Luthien in character'.
If you like PJ could have presented stubbornness on both sides of the issue, but would that make for a very good scene? Perhaps their arguing could have been the perfect opportunity for Frodo to ride off on the horse himself, thus re-masculating Aragorn and allowing Frodo to face the Nazgul all in one fell swoop!

 

[Talimon]

Jackson saw that Tolkien need not have stained book-Aragorn's heroism by showing him ready to play the Sauron/Gondor war for his own benefit.

I do not see it like that at all. I think you are making big assumptions on PJ's part here. You are suggesting that PJ changed Aragorn because he thought he wasn't perfect; he needed to be much more noble. I don't see any substantial evidence that supports this.

Movie-Aragorn will come to Minas Tirith for altruistic reasons undefiled by any political desire whatsover, but of course, everyone, as in the book, will just insist he must remain and rule them, and since they all want it so badly, and he is the rightful heir after all, movie-Aragorn will humbly agree.

Here I disagree. I think you are assuming way too much about RotK. In fact, my hunch is completely different. I'm suspecting that by the time Aragorn reaches Minas Tirith he will fully acknowledge that he is the rightful king. He will be wielding Narsil, and will be prepared to accept the throne. You are completely ignoring PJ's whole change: Aragorn will grow into a king. He won't just be persuaded. Indeed, if you look at Aragorn at the end of TTT he is a very different charachter from Aragorn in the beginning of FotR. The whole point here is that PJ has made Aragorn a charachter that will grow to accept his role as king. He won't reach Minas Tirith as the same charachter he was in the beginning of FotR.

Movie-Aragorn will never hold the Ring, will never possess it, never be in a position himself to cast it away.

He will never be seriously tempted to take it either, though he obviously has many opportunites. Movie-Aragorn will instead face probable death alone against fifty Orcs to allow the chosen Ring-bearer to escape.

I believe the whole point of that scene at Amon Hen was to show how Aragorn was tempted there for a moment. If you listen closely you can hear the ring whispering, "Aragorn...Aragorn..." That whole scene was meant to fulfill Arwens prophecy that Aragorn will "face the same evil, and you will defeat it." That evil is the temptation of power. He faced that temptation. He defeated it. He sent the ring away.

Even without the Appendices, the main narrative gives a reasonable account of the decline and disappearance of Arnor and the continued existance of the Dúnedain of the North under chieftains descended from Isildur, Aragorn being the current chieftain.

I personally discount the Appendices. They aren't part of the actual tale of LotR. I'll be perfectly honest with you: from the tale of LotR, I learned little to nothing about Aragorns history. If you can find me solid quotes from the actual book that make it clear then I'll be very surprised. One of the most common questions by new readers involve Aragorn, and why he is the rightful king. The fact is, Tolkien did not fully cover the events of the Second Age in LotR. We hear just a little of Isildur at the Council of Elrond, but just exactly who he is is never made perfectly clear. I credit PJ for making it perfectly clear who Isildur is, and how Aragorn is his descendant.

If movie-Aragorn is the rightful king of Gondor but another now rules the land, the question of why this is so obviously arises.

So far Jackson has given no answer.

Show me an answer in the books FotR and TTT. I can't remember there being any. Which is probably because it doesn't really matter. Denethor is not "King", so to speak. He is merely a steward ruling in the place of king. So long as that is made clear we don't need to delve any deeper.

I think it has been shown that the book Aragorn was in fact conflicted. He could not marry his beloved without being king of both kingdoms, but he could not do that while Sauron remained the most powerful force in Middle-earth. In fact, it appeared to be all over for the Ranger until the Ring appeared. Only then was there any hope (slim to none) of the Dark Lord being ultimately defeated and his chance come to get both the throne and the lady.

The point, MM, is that everything you are mentioning is not told in the tale LotR. It is the backstory of that tale. More importantly, by the time we meet Aragorn in the book he has already made his choice to head to Minas Tirith. We meet him at the peak of his charachter arc. During the tale, I can't find anything to suggest that Aragorns charachter was conflicted. Yes, he fights more orcs. Yes, he meets more people. Yes, he makes analytical decisions. But as a charachter I can't find anything.

 

[jallan]

Mrs. Maggott posted:

Someone is going to have to bring news to Elrond in Rivendell (where the sword is located) that it's time to reforge the thing because Aragorn has grown up and is now willing to be king!

I don't see why reforging the sword and giving it to Aragorn should have anything whatever to do with him deciding to accept or reject kingship, a kingship, which, as in the book, will be almost forced upon him.

In the book it seems the sword is reforged because of the dream told to the Council by book-Boromir combined with an ancient prophecy.

This is not becuase of any decision book-Aragorn to seek the kingship. Book-Aragorn has long been ready to seek it, and the dream only gives him his chance to do so.

Rather oddly, the broken sword in the book is almost a blind motif.

With it Aragorn could doubtless cleave man and horse in twain with more ease than with any other sword, but it is not used for anything important. Aragorn himself is not especially important in the tale as a fighter or swordsman, not especially shown to be an heroic slayer of hundreds in battle beyond any of his comtemporaries, not proclaimed as the the greatest swordsman of his age.

Did Tolkien originally forsee something like a duel between Aragorn and Sauron himself which never came off in the event?

Will Jackson actually use the sword for something?

Talimon posted:

I'm suspecting that by the time Aragorn reaches Minas Tirith he will fully acknowledge that he is the rightful king. He will be wielding Narsil, and will be prepared to accept the throne.

Of course he will accept the throne, as in the book, when everyone pushes it at him. My point is that book-Aragorn, in the end, doesn't seek for the kingship because he is practially acclaimed by everyone he meets. Jackson has realized that the seeking was a motif that could be eliminated. So Jackson substitutes a contrasting counter-motif of someone who does not seek power at all. It won't matter in the end.

If movie-Aragorn accepts kingship in the film in any other way than being acclaimed by almost everyone he meets in Minas Tirith, it will be because of some new Jacksonian incident or reinterpretation of any old incident that makes claiming the kingship a necessity. Jackson's Aragorn cannot claim power for any other reason than altruism.

Indeed, if you look at Aragorn at the end of TTT he is a very different charachter from Aragorn in the beginning of FotR.

What different character? Have his beliefs changed, his manner of speech, his ability to fight, his devotion to duty, his motives, his understanding? I see nothing changed about him.

What would the Aragorn at the end of the The Two Towers have done differently at any point in the past that we have seen, other than probably rejecting Arwen's love at the first meeting we see.

You can try to make a case that movie-Aragorn is coming to appreciate the qualites of Men more from his decision to throw in his lot fully with the Rohirrim.

But we don't know anything for certain about movie-Aragorn's career before Bree, other than that he had once seen the White City, that he has gained Arwen's love (indicating exceptional deeds and exceptional quailties?), that Gandalf believes he could unite the divided and scattered race of Men (also indicating exceptional deeds and exceptional qualities?), and that he has become an extraordinarily capable experienced woodsman, tracker, and swordsman.

How has he changed from that?

Any argument for change or growing is an argument from Jackson's silence.

You can magine it, if you wish to. You can also imagine it for book-Aragorn, but less easily because Tolkien drops more references to previous and untold exploits in book-Aragorn's past.

I believe the whole point of that scene at Amon Hen was to show how Aragorn was tempted there for a moment. If you listen closely you can hear the ring whispering, "Aragorn...Aragorn..." That whole scene was meant to fulfill Arwens prophecy that Aragorn will "face the same evil, and you will defeat it." That evil is the temptation of power. He faced that temptation.

Yes, and I said so.

I was pointing out it that this did not seem to be a serious temptation.

It is not, as far as it is shown, on the level of that experienced by Boromir or movie-Galadriel. Aragorn hears but calmly and firmly refuses, as we expect.

We hear just a little of Isildur at the Council of Elrond, but just exactly who he is is never made perfectly clear. I credit PJ for making it perfectly clear who Isildur is, and how Aragorn is his descendant.

Tolkien has Gandalf tell the story of Isildur and the One Ring very briefly to Frodo, Elrond repeats it briefly at the Council, and Gandalf tells of Isildur's experience with the One Ring more fully at the same Council. We are told again and again that Aragorn is Isildur's Heir.

All accounts are perlectly clear, though undoutedly not perfectly remembered by most first readers, any more than such details might be remembered if spoken or only shown once quickly in a film.

Jackson certainly makes it more vivid and memorable, which is a benefit.

But the book indeed does explain clearly how book-Aragorn is Isildur's descendant, along with a fair amount of talk at various points about the Dúnedain of the North.

So Talimon, how is movie-Aragorn Isildur's descendant if, as you claim, PJ tells us that?

Show me an answer in the books FotR and TTT. I can't remember there being any. Which is probably because it doesn't really matter. Denethor is not "King", so to speak. He is merely a steward ruling in the place of king. So long as that is made clear we don't need to delve any deeper.

The information is in the chapter "The Council of Elrond", where one should expect to find it. Read particularly Elrond's description of the Last Alliance, Boromir's summary of the history of Gondor, Aragorn's speech about the part played by the Dúnedain of the North, and Gandalf's account of Isildur and the Ring.
Later you can read Faramir's more detailed, supplementary account to Frodo about the origin of the Ruling Stewards after the disappearance of "King Eärnur, last of the line of Anárion, and childless". In this section both Frodo and Faramir understand that Aragorn has a claim to the throne, but Tolkien makes those comments vague enough, probably on purpose, that they may go by the reader.

Most first time readers will not remember all of this precisely, but should retain enough to understand, if vaguely, that the Rangers are Dúnedain of the North, ruled by a line of Chieftains descended from Isildur. Of these, Aragorn is the current Chieftain. Because the related lineage of the Kings of Gondor has died out, but no other kings have been chosen in their place, Aragorn can make a reasonable claim for the kingship.

One of the most common questions by new readers involve Aragorn, and why he is the rightful king.

Fair enough. A reader can easily miss some of this, as you apparently did. But the details are indeed explained clearly in the main story as one would expect them to be in any story about a lost heir or exiled heir. They are also more completely spelled out in Appendix A.

In the films much of tale from the book appears invalid.

So what is replaement story in the film? If it is reasonable for readers of the book to want those details, it is surely reasonable for viewers of the film.

What other tale of a lost heir or exiled heir in book or film ignores such basics?

We meet him at the peak of his character arc.

Possibly also true of movie-Aragorn. Movie-Aragorn has already won Gandalf's high respect and Arwen's love.

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by jallan
Mrs. Maggott posted:I don't see why reforging the sword and giving it to Aragorn should have anything whatever to do with him deciding to accept or reject kingship...In the book it seems it is reforged because of the dream told to the Council by book-Boromir combined with an ancient prophecy, not because of any decision by book-Aragorn to seek the kingship. Book-Aragorn has long been ready to seek it, and the dream only gives him his chance to do so. Here the dream is the link between the two.....Rather oddly, the broken sword in the book is almost a blind motif.

I disagree. This is where the movie is lacking in symbolism that Tolkien wrote. Anduril is Isildur's sword. An heirloom rightly made for his descendants. There is great power and symoblism of leadership in that sword. It was reforged for book Aragorn to finally claim his throne. The sword was the rallying factor at Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields. For any man to touch it was to bring death. It was definitely a kingly symbol given to Aragorn at the right time to fulfill his purpose.

IMO, the movie has again made this mute by introducing it and then showing Aragorn running from his heritage. Maggot makes good points as to exactly how PJ is going to swing this to reconcile the meaning of Anduril with the attitude of Aragorn. At the least, he seems to be delaying what Tolkien showed outright.

People say, "Wait until RoTK" But I was giving PJ the benefit of the doubt with Saruman from FoTR to TTT and was disappointed. I won't hold my breath.

 

[jallan]

Thorin posted:

It was reforged for book Aragorn to finally claim his throne.

No. It was reforged particularly because of the dream, indicating the time had come for the reforging.

Aragorn, its owner, of course will himself bear it to Gondor to use in the impending war.

He hopes, that he will become king. He might be going to his death.

But book-Aragorn also refuses to actually claim kingship until after the war is over.

Andúril is indeed a great symbol, Thorin, and seems to shine with its own ruddy light.

But Narsil was more than symbol, being the sword with which book-Elendil actually cast down book-Sauron himself, though it then broke; and with its hilt shard book-Isildur was able to cut the Ring from the hand of the fallen book-Sauron.

It is a sword the can actually beat Sauron.

Andúril, Narsil reforged, is used in no comparable way. It is a immense symbolic value, but is used only as a normal battle sword against ordinary foes, so far as we see.

Merry's sword from the barrow is used in a way more fitting what we might expect of Andúril.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by Thorin
But I was giving PJ the benefit of the doubt with Saruman from FoTR to TTT and was disappointed. I won't hold my breath.

We haven't seen the reckoning at Isengard yet. Saruman still has room to be his own man. Wait for RotK.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

If in the film the sword had no meaning connected with Aragorn's willingness to be king, why did they not just do what Tolkien did and have it forged before he left Rivendell?

No, my dear Jallan, the only reason that Jackson could possibly have had for not reforging Narsil before the Company sets out is its symbolic link to the kingship. As long as Aragorn is in denial of his heritage, he cannot wield the sword; it's just as simple as that, I'm afraid.

Now maybe they'll "fudge" the thing with some sort of vision in G.'s mirror, but the simple fact is that the sword cannot be in play until Aragorn has accepted his obligation and his birthright.

Of course, in the book none of this was necessary since there was never a question of that in the first place. Hence, once again, Mr. Jackson has added to his plot and time constraint difficulties instead of doing what we've all been told he has been doing all along - simplifying the original terribly complex story.

 

[jallan]

Mrs. Maggott posted:

No, my dear Jallan, the only reason that Jackson could possibly have had for not reforging Narsil before the Company sets out is its symbolic link to the kingship. As long as Aragorn is in denial of his heritage, he cannot wield the sword; it's just as simple as that, I'm afraid.

The sword may be a symbol of resistance to Sauron, and of resistance to evil and oppression in general. But how is this sword a symbol of kingship?

It was broken at the end of the Ware of the Last Alliance. The only king who ever bore it unbroken in Middle-earth was Elendil, the first king of Arnor.

Isildur bore only the shards. Aragorn is bearing the shards when we first meet him.

The shards of the sword were an heirloom of the kings of Arnor, then of the kings of Arthedain, finally of the Chieftains of the Dúnedain of the North.

There seems no connection with Gondor, other than that Isildur was originally king of Gondor. But the sword was originally Elendil's, not Isildur's.

There is a prophecy that it will be reforged when the One Ring is found.

This is accordingly done.

Then Aragorn sets off with it to Minas Tirith, but not, necessarily, to openly claim the kingship of Gondor at that time. We are left dark as to exactly what Aragorn's plans were in that regard, though we know that claiming the kingship was his long-term plan.

The sword would have been seen as a symbol of resistance against Sauron.

But why a symbol of kingship and why particularly of the kingship of Gondor?

In the film the history of the sword from the time of the death of Isildur is unknown.

Will we ever discover why the sword is in Rivendell? Will we ever discover why Gilraen grave is there? Maybe there is a connection? Maybe it was brought there as part of whatever back story we are to imagine for Aragorn's lineage?

Maybe there is just confusion?

The first two films has yet to hint at reforging it.

In Tolkien's version it was reforged in response to the prophecy and the dream. The dream has been dropped, because Jackson's Aragorn does not seek power or rule, does not use the impending war to try to further his own ambitions.

Jackson might have still retained the old prophecy and caused the sword to be reforged as a weapon for Aragorn to use in guiding Frodo into Mordor. A sword with the power to fell Sauron himself, wielded by Isildur's own heir, might well have been useful there.

That Jackson did not do this may indicate that he sees in it, as you speculate, a link to the kingship of Gondor, logical or not. (He may be able to make a logical link, or an illogical link.)

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was of the opinion that Elendil was wielding Narsil during that conflict and that as he died, he fell on the sword and it broke under him. As Sauron lay defeated, Isildur took his father's broken sword and cut the Ring from the Dark Lord's finger. But until it was broken upon Elendil's death, the sword - not shards of it - was being wielded by the King. Naturally, Isildur kept the shards as a talisman of his house. No doubt he intended to have it reforged for his own use as King upon his return to Arnor, but, of course, he never got there.

No, the sword is definitely a sign of Kingship and not just an heirloom except as it presently appears in the film (in pieces, that is!).

 

[jallan]

Mrs Maggott posted:

No, the sword is definitely a sign of Kingship ....

I've heard this before.

No-one seems to be able to demonstrate it from Tolkien's text.

Yes, Narsil was originally ownd by a king. So was Glamdring, Gandalf's sword, that the king of Gondlin once wore.

Narils was kept by Elendil's descendants, the ealiest of whom ruled a kingdom as extensive as Elendil did, or more so.

But they did not reforge the sword.

The sword was to be reforged, according to prophecy, when the One Ring was found.

Why?

Presumably to be used against Sauron or whatever other power might inherit Sauron's power through the Ring.

I would suppose it might be wielded by its hereditary owner, or bestowed by that owner on another great hero.

Why should either have to be a king?

Aragorn, despite his purpose to eventually become king of Gondor and Arnor, will not seek the kingship or let any speak about it until the war is ended, though he is quite ready to use the reforged sword.

He might have been going to his death, as did Elendil.

Again no-one seems to be able to demonstrate a connection between kingship and the sword from Tolkien's text.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Again, if this is the case, why didn't Jackson just reforge the sword and give it to Aragorn before the company left Rivendell? Obviously, this was to be the greatest "crusade" of his life, so if the sword has no connection with kingship, just fix it and give it to the guy! Why keep it in pieces - unless, of course, Jackson's Aragorn is afraid to even touch something that belonged to bad old Islidur lest he be "corrupted"....