Why did Peter Jackson exclude Narsil in Aragorn's storyline?

[Mrs. Maggott]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Talimon
The very notion of a lead charachter starting the film with a sense of mission, confidence, and vision is almost comical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I think you are forgetting something very important in this whole equation - The Ring! For most of his life, Aragorn has done what he can to prepare for the time should it come that he would be able to make a claim on the throne of Gondor. The main reason for this is the fact that he cannot marry Arwen unless he is King of both realms. However, he is also aware that he cannot come forward and make his claim while Sauron is the strongest force in Middle-earth. At the time the story opens (or shortly before) Sauron is pursuing his war of conquest, but carefully and with great skill. There is no hurry to his mind, since the forces arrayed against him are virtually moribund. Only Gondor openly resists; the rest of Middle-earth seems to want to sleep the sleep of the blind and deaf. (The Ents are a striking example of those who know something should be done, indeed, something must be done, but inertia and apathy clog the system and nothing is done).

So Aragorn remains in the North (with some forays into the South) preparing himself but frustrated by a situation that he cannot change because there is no force in Middle-earth able to challange Sauron. Then, lo and behold, the Ring is found! Furthermore, Sauron knows that it has been found and is seeking it and the one who bears it. The time for secrecy is over. If Sauron finds the Ring, he will rise so high that none will be able to challenge him and Aragorn is lost. If the Ring is destroyed, then he will diminish to impotence and Aragorn will be able to make his claim in safety not only for himself but for the people of Middle-earth.

Thus it is the Ring the precipitates all the action in LOTR including Aragorn's decision to take the sword re-forged and go to Minas Tirith to fight for Gondor. Of course, the fall of Gandalf in Moria and the ambush at Parth Galen prevent the completion of this worthy plan, but certainly the post-Ring Aragorn is much more focussed and determined than he was when the Ring was still nothing more than a legend because his options had been made much more clear.

 

[JMacEye]

Thank you MM for claryfying my own thoughts as well...

It just reiterates just how far PJ has strayed from the story and how all of the actions of all the players are interrelated in such ways that changing one will change the next, and so on.

The Sword needed to leave Rivendell in order to be following the tale with any consideration for the deeper meanings behind all of Aragorn's actions.

As it is, his quest, his goals and his purpose are diluted.

 

[Grond]

I take exception to any statement the Aragorn's character wasn't challenged with conflict... he had plenty. He had great challenges throughout the book that allowed him to assume his mantle of Kinghood. The first occurred at Weathertop, again in Rivendell when his love for Arwen was hinted at, at Moria both in entering and in leaving, in Lorien, at Amon Hen, again at Fanghorn. All three books are filled with challenges to Aragorn and challenges to the whole Fellowship. Each and every character is challenged to a lesser or greater degree. Gimli and Legolas the least, whereas Frodo and Aragorn to the greatest. I fail to see how going from a doubting almost cowardly legate to a majestic king is any more believeable than what Tolkien put in the printed word.

The same can be said for Merry and Pippin. In the movie they are portrayed with near slapstick comedy and develop throughout the movies to more substantial characters. I think PJ sells the audiences short in feeling he must show such dramatic changes in the characters which in many cases are totally contrary to the source material's portrayal.

I am assuming that PJ will use Anduril/Narsil the same way that JRRT did... just later in the tale. Anduril (Narsil reforged) proudly proclaimed that the heir to Isildur was going to war to reclaim his kingdom. JRRT's character claimed that mantle once the Ring was found and the decision was made to destroy it. PJ's Aragorn has yet to claim that mantle through the second movie. I'm sure in the film ROTK he will assume the mantle and at that time will be endowed (somehow) with Anduril. (Hmmm..... maybe Arwen will bring it to him.)

 

[JMacEye]

I could not agree with you more Grond. I mentioned PJ's apparent need to be PC in an earlier post but it is hard to get some to understand the point.

I started this thread because I really had not known that Narsil had not been reforged. It never even entered my mind. Since PJ has missed many opportunities to show very effective and dramatic moments to reveal Aragron's true identity to the audience (what a cheat that he is withholding this)...for example the meeting with Eomer on the fields of Rohan -- one of the very best scenes in the whole book IMO -- I had no faith he was even using the sword again at all.

I was not impressed with the scene in the "museum". PJ could just as easily have neglected it as he did many other things. And I have NO doubt it would have been excused as fine and dandy and necessary by someone.

I have thought PJ underestimated and dumb-downed the plot from day one, and the change of Aragorn's character to leave Rivendell without the Anduril is just another example. For me it is the worst. Aragorn's character was the most thrilling in the book for me....the acting in the film is wonderful, given what Viggo has to work with, but I can only imagine how jaw dropping, and "goose bumpy" some of those scenes could have been had they been filmed.
Frodo and Saw tug at my heart strings (movie and book) .... Aragorn, (book Aragorn) and the tasks he undertakes on his was to Gondor, cause my heart to soar, my throat to tighten and brings tears to my eyes for a completely different reason. So far, I have felt nothing like that watching Aragorn.

That does not mean I have not enjoyed some things if I pretend I do not know what "really" happened, but something deep is missing. I thought the trashing of Faramir's character was just unforgiveable, but this is far worse.

 

[aragil]

Originally posted by JMacEye
I could not agree with you more Grond. I mentioned PJ's apparent need to be PC in an earlier post but it is hard to get some to understand the point.

I still don't understand this. By what measure is a conflicted individual more 'PC' than non-conflicted individual. Are you sure you're not trying to say more 'modern', or something to that effect? Usually 'PC' is intended to mean something that is not offensive to minorities. Are you somehow trying to suggest that not-conflicted is offensive to minorities???

Originally posted by JMacEye
I started this thread because I really had not known that Narsil had not been reforged. It never even entered my mind. Since PJ has missed many opportunities to show very effective and dramatic moments to reveal Aragron's true identity to the audience (what a cheat that he is withholding this)...for example the meeting with Eomer on the fields of Rohan -- one of the very best scenes in the whole book IMO -- I had no faith he was even using the sword again at all.

From the movie
BOROMIR: What would a ranger know of this matter?
LEGOLAS: He is no mere ranger. This is Aragorn, son of Arathorn. You owe him your allegiance.
BOROMIR: This is Isildur's heir?
LEGOLAS: And heir to the throne of Gondor.
STRIDER: Sit down, Legolas.
BOROMIR: Gondor has no king, Gondor needs no king.

Was some part of this exchange to subtle or are you conveniently forgetting it when you say that PJ is witholding Aragorn's true identity?

Originally posted by JMacEye
I was not impressed with the scene in the "museum". PJ could just as easily have neglected it as he did many other things. And I have NO doubt it would have been excused as fine and dandy and necessary by someone.

Looks like you just excused the scene when you said it didn't impress you. I'm genuinely confused now. I thought that your whole thesis on this thread was that PJ did not give Narsil/Anduril it's due. Now you are poo-pooing an entire scene dedicated to that sword. What, if anything, would make you happy in this matter?

Originally posted by JMacEye
I have thought PJ underestimated and dumb-downed the plot from day one, and the change of Aragorn's character to leave Rivendell without the Anduril is just another example. For me it is the worst.

How has PJ dumbed-down the plot? I thought the consensus here was that he had made Aragorn more complex/conflicted than in the book. Is complexity now a sign of dumbing stuff down?

 

[JMacEye]

Aragil, frankly, I am tired of the FADS seeming delight in picking apart, line by line, anyone's opinions. No matter how hard we purists try to explain, the FADS never listen carefully and never try to understand. They only come back with more (seemingly intentional) misunderstandings.

So I am going to ignore the challenge you made simply because experience has taught me that no amount of explanation will help you understand my point of view. I think you do not care what my answers might be, so why bother?

There are a view FADS here who simply do not want to understand another's point of view and respect thier opinion, but rather just delight in arguing for arguments sake. I do not need to do so, and find it a waste of time with those who do not want to exchange ideas but rather simply want to argue and point out perceived inconsistencies.

If you had any intention of trying to understand my point of view and opinion, I would gladly try to explain, point for point. But I know better...it would do know good whatsoever, so I will pass. There are plenty of others who want to discuss ideas and consider other explanations, and I choose to limit my time to them.

 

[aragil]

Hmm. Thank you for that curt reply. Looking back at my own post, I can't help but notice that every point I made was actually a question, and that I not only said I didn't understand something, I also said I was confused. How is this challenging you? Besides asking you to clarify your points, how else am I supposed to show that I am interested in understanding your posts? I am confused by your post, and wanted some clarifications. Please don't take it so personally- if you want to discuss ideas then that is what I'm here for.

 

[Talimon]

the post-Ring Aragorn is much more focussed and determined than he was when the Ring was still nothing more than a legend because his options had been made much more clear.

This may be true, but since the actual tale of LotR does not show us the pre-Ring Aragorn I do not see any significant change. From the moment we meet Aragorn he is aware of the ring. If what you claim is true, then he has already made his "big change" before the tale even starts. But during the tale he does not change significantly, if at all. At most he exposes himself more and more. One could interpret this as gaining confidence, but the book certainly does not make any effort at enforcing this. This works great for the book, because Aragorn is meant to be a little distanced from us. Tolkien didn't want us to see the inner-workings of his mind. But it would be very difficult to have one of the central charachters of the film be distanced like that. We wouldn't sympathize with him. How could we? His actions would be entirely too great for us to comprehend. As Odo points out, such a charachter would sooner resemble Rambo then an actual King.

He had great challenges throughout the book that allowed him to assume his mantle of Kinghood. The first occurred at Weathertop, again in Rivendell when his love for Arwen was hinted at, at Moria both in entering and in leaving, in Lorien, at Amon Hen, again at Fanghorn.

I did not say Aragorn wasn't challenged. Physically he is challenged throughout the whole tale, and even mentally at times (on an analytic level). But as an actual charachter, with feelings and emotions, with fears and doubts, with strengths and weaknesses, Aragorn does not go through much conflict. He is essentially the same charachter throughout the whole tale. It has been said that he becomes more kingly at times, and with this I agree; but there is nothing there to justify this kingly nature. In fact, the only explanation I can find for him being so noble at times is that it is due to his Numenorian blood. Again, I can't see that working in film very well. On page, yes.

I fail to see how going from a doubting almost cowardly legate to a majestic king is any more believeable than what Tolkien put in the printed word.

"Believeable" in what sense? If you mean "realistic" then certainly they both are. Aragorn in the book has clearly already completed his emotional journey before we meet him, and is ripe and ready to head to Gondor. Yes, he is an interesting charachter, because he is both noble, poetic, and wise. On the page he is essentially a charachter at the climax of his charahcter arc during the whole tale.

On the other hand, if you mean "believeable" in the sense that we can emotionaly relate and understand his charachter, I'd argue the book does not offer much. Tolkien is perfectly fine with this, because it adds to Aragorns mystique. But mystique that never resolves itself can't make for an interesting film-charachter. Aragorn needs some substance on-screen in order to be a full charachter. He needs to face some sort of conflict for us to care about him. If he just rips out of nowhere reforging Narsil, and claims his heritage with fury and pride in-front of Eomer, the emotional reaction will be very empty. Why should we care? This charachter is already where he wants to go. He has nowhere to go from here. He does not need our sympathy or empathy. Even in the book I'd argue he doesn't need it. Which is probably just the way Tolkien wanted it. But in a film...

What PJ has done not only makes sense within the context of the tale, I also find it to make Aragorns tale much more mythic then it would have been otherwise. I just don't think I'd care so much about Aragorn in RotK were he already worthy of being a king. Think of Star Wars.... would you care about Luke confronting his father if he was already a Jedi to begin with? How would the whole SW tale play out if Luke was already a centered and wisened Jedi to begin with? If he already knew what he had to do? I am thinking that we probably wouldn't care about him that much. It is the fact that he has both strengths and weaknesses that makes his tale interesting.

 

[JMacEye]

All right, Aragil, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and see how far it gets me.

I still don't understand this. By what measure is a conflicted individual more 'PC' than non-conflicted individual. Are you sure you're not trying to say more 'modern', or something to that effect? Usually 'PC' is intended to mean something that is not offensive to minorities. Are you somehow trying to suggest that not-conflicted is offensive to minorities???

No, by PC, I mean the notion that everyone is equal. That there is no such thing as someone who is BORN higher, MORE noble and BETTER than you or me. I think that, in this instance, PJ has tried to make Aragorn more like us, not so different, just a plain guy who rises in front of our eyes to be more than he started out. That is what I mean. The term PC seems to fit my idea.

Was some part of this exchange to subtle or are you conveniently forgetting it when you say that PJ is witholding Aragorn's true identity?

Ok, your statement seemed unnessesarily rude, which is why I did not want to respond to it, but I will still try to address it nonetheless:

My point is not that PJ ignored the Sword all together, but that scenes where Aragorn did reveal his Kingship were completely powerless and dull. Nothing about the scene at Elrond's council was as powerful as the scene with Eomer, and then Boromir prompty slammed Aragorn. I did not mean that Aragorn's Kingship was COMPLETELY hidden from the audience, but that the wonderful scenes where, in the book, Arargorn reveals his magestic potential are omitted. And that cheats the audience.

Looks like you just excused the scene when you said it didn't impress you. I'm genuinely confused now. I thought that your whole thesis on this thread was that PJ did not give Narsil/Anduril it's due. Now you are poo-pooing an entire scene dedicated to that sword. What, if anything, would make you happy in this matter?

My point was that even though the scene did show Narsil, instead of reveiling anything wonderful about it or Aragorn's power, we have a sneering Boromir and a pathetic Aragorn feeling sorry for himself with Arwen trying to reassure him with that (IMO) awful accent she is trying to use.....ugh. When I said PJ could have neglected it, I meant that I thought PJ could have easily never mentioned the sword again after this scene, as he has many other things, and FADS would have found an excuse for it.

How has PJ dumbed-down the plot? I thought the consensus here was that he had made Aragorn more complex/conflicted than in the book. Is complexity now a sign of dumbing stuff down?

Yes, in my opinion, not bothering to explain the path that Aragorn has ALREADY traveled to bring him to the point we encounter him, and, instead, trying to make us believe that he just transforms into the "King" right before out eyes, is dumbing down the plot. The information and history behind who Aragorn is, is critical, but instead, we have the museum scene and the dream scene and other, IMO, simplistically done scenes whose time could have been used to tell the audience who Aragorn really was in wonderfully dramatic and powerful scenes.

 

[Grond]

I'm going to also attempt to answer these questions, not because I disagree with my friend JMacEye but because I want to express my own opinions on the questions.

Originally posted by aragil
I still don't understand this. By what measure is a conflicted individual more 'PC' than non-conflicted individual. Are you sure you're not trying to say more 'modern', or something to that effect? Usually 'PC' is intended to mean something that is not offensive to minorities. Are you somehow trying to suggest that not-conflicted is offensive to minorities???

Aragorn is indeed a PC character in my opinion. He is not independent from an emotional standpoint. He is not the man of the house. He is dependent, in fact he is totally dependent on Arwen's character to bolster his confidence and ego to elevate him to the status that he has already claimed in the book. The movie Aragorn is complex in his patheticism but totally shallow in his strength. He is a weakened character waiting for the love of his life to propel him to his destiny. This exudes Political Correctness and is fully indicative of the purely female input of PB and FW. Of course, this is only in Grond's shallow Humble Opinion!

Originally posted by Aragil
Looks like you just excused the scene when you said it didn't impress you. I'm genuinely confused now. I thought that your whole thesis on this thread was that PJ did not give Narsil/Anduril it's due. Now you are poo-pooing an entire scene dedicated to that sword. What, if anything, would make you happy in this matter?

The Narsil shrine scene was exactly what you say Aragil. It was a bunch of poo-poo. It showed an unbelievably weak Aragorn, totally unsure of himself and both his heritage and his legacy. It showed a more correct Boromir... who exuded arrogance and contempt both for the line of Isildur and the weak Ranger he saw hiding in the corner. Again, the scene's highlight was Arwen appearing to sooth and croon over Aragorn to reassure him of the path he should take.

Originally posted by Aragil
How has PJ dumbed-down the plot? I thought the consensus here was that he had made Aragorn more complex/conflicted than in the book. Is complexity now a sign of dumbing stuff down?

Actually, I feel the book Aragorn is so much more complex than the movie Aragorn. The movie Aragorn is predictable with little mystery. He is a wimp... and we, the audience, are simply waiting for the dramatic transformation to occur. Any fool (myself included) knows that it is going to happen. Aragorn will look as Arwen rides over the hill at the Battle of Pelannor Fields bearing the Sword that was Broken, Narsil Reforged, the New Sword for the New King, Anduril.

A character can be conflicted, unsure and insecure without a hint of complexity. I find the movie Aragorn totally lacks complexity, in fact, in my opinion, he is totally predictable. Having said all that, I do love the movie. I love the changed plot (even though it is much more predictable than the book.)

Aragil, I've missed you my man!!! Cheers!

 

[JMacEye]

Well, gosh, Grond, you had me going there for a moment, right up until you said you loved the changed plot....what did I miss?

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

There is another thing here with the sword: Jackson makes Isildur an unpleasant fellow who puts on the Ring in order to leave his followers to be slain and is only slain himself because the Ring slips from his finger. In the book, so I'm told, Isildur's son, knowing that the battle is lost, begs his father to flee with the Ring so that it doesn't fall into the hands of the Enemy's minions. So not only does Jackson "diss" Aragorn, he makes Islidur into the kind of relative you really wouldn't want to acknowledge.

The room with the sword struck me as very odd altogether. It is filled with a blue light, but it isn't "light" or bright. There is no warmth and certainly very little of the feeling of "heroism" about it. The bluish light that Jackson frequently uses in his elven scenes (except when they are supposed to be at night) is more a "corpse light" than a revelatory light of goodness. Narsil is in a tomb, not a shrine.

And, of course, Jackson's problem with Aragorn is that he never develops the character to illustrate that the man is over 80 years old. He looks in his early forties and the director allows you to consider him as such. Well, how much could he have accomplished hiding out in the North in 40 years compared to how much he did accomplish during his years of errantry (to use a knightly term) in the 60 years he roamed Middle-earth defending the right and becoming a worthy king? Again, Jackson's "compressed time" configuration (such as happens with Frodo and the Ring which is the passage of less than a year rather than 17 years) seriously compromises our understanding of who Aragorn is. No wonder he is lacking in majesty? What did he ever do except run around in the wild and hide from his birthright that would provide him with that virtue?

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
This may be true, but since the actual tale of LotR does not show us the pre-Ring Aragorn I do not see any significant change. From the moment we meet Aragorn he is aware of the ring. If what you claim is true, then he has already made his "big change" before the tale even starts. But during the tale he does not change significantly, if at all. At most he exposes himself more and more. One could interpret this as gaining confidence, but the book certainly does not make any effort at enforcing this. This works great for the book, because Aragorn is meant to be a little distanced from us. Tolkien didn't want us to see the inner-workings of his mind. But it would be very difficult to have one of the central charachters of the film be distanced like that. We wouldn't sympathize with him. How could we? His actions would be entirely too great for us to comprehend. As Odo points out, such a charachter would sooner resemble Rambo then an actual King.

Ahhh, how we all forget. The Lord of the Rings is not about Aragorn becoming King. It is about a people growing out of obscurity and saving the world. It is not about Man... it is about Hobbits. You have hit upon the total deviation of PJ. The change of direction from being a story about the coming of age of the Hobbits as a race in the book to it being a story of Hobbits helping the main characters (Viggo and Liv) become King and Queen or Arnor and Gondor in the movie. One thing that totally flipped me out about TTT was the total deemphasis of the quest of the Ring. Frodo and Sam were inserted almost as an aside. I did love Gollum though and PJ got Gollum dead on IMHO.

Originally posted by Talimon
I did not say Aragorn wasn't challenged. Physically he is challenged throughout the whole tale, and even mentally at times (on an analytic level). But as an actual charachter, with feelings and emotions, with fears and doubts, with strengths and weaknesses, Aragorn does not go through much conflict. He is essentially the same charachter throughout the whole tale. It has been said that he becomes more kingly at times, and with this I agree; but there is nothing there to justify this kingly nature. In fact, the only explanation I can find for him being so noble at times is that it is due to his Numenorian blood. Again, I can't see that working in film very well. On page, yes.

Talimon, again I simply beg to disagree. The book Aragorn is already a complete a confident man for sure. He has already been betrothed to Arwen and the only way to get her is to reclaim both the throne or Arnor and Gondor. He is driven and this drive would have parlayed very well onto the screen. He is also tremendously conflicted in the book and PJ would have had ample opportunity to convey this had he stuck to the author's plot. Aragorn at Moria, Aragorn at Lorien, Aragorn at Amon Hen, Aragorn at Fanghorn, Aragorn at Dunharrow. All of these events were watersheds in his character development. If you don't see that then you can't have reread the book lately. (I just did again while sitting in the hospital--- Good things do come from adversity.)

Originally posted by Talimon
"Believeable" in what sense? If you mean "realistic" then certainly they both are. Aragorn in the book has clearly already completed his emotional journey before we meet him, and is ripe and ready to head to Gondor. Yes, he is an interesting charachter, because he is both noble, poetic, and wise. On the page he is essentially a charachter at the climax of his charahcter arc during the whole tale.

On the other hand, if you mean "believeable" in the sense that we can emotionaly relate and understand his character, I'd argue the book does not offer much. Tolkien is perfectly fine with this, because it adds to Aragorns mystique. But mystique that never resolves itself can't make for an interesting film-character. Aragorn needs some substance on-screen in order to be a full charachter. He needs to face some sort of conflict for us to care about him. If he just rips out of nowhere reforging Narsil, and claims his heritage with fury and pride in-front of Eomer, the emotional reaction will be very empty. Why should we care? This charachter is already where he wants to go. He has nowhere to go from here. He does not need our sympathy or empathy. Even in the book I'd argue he doesn't need it. Which is probably just the way Tolkien wanted it. But in a film...

What PJ has done not only makes sense within the context of the tale, I also find it to make Aragorns tale much more mythic then it would have been otherwise. I just don't think I'd care so much about Aragorn in RotK were he already worthy of being a king. Think of Star Wars.... would you care about Luke confronting his father if he was already a Jedi to begin with? How would the whole SW tale play out if Luke was already a centered and wisened Jedi to begin with? If he already knew what he had to do? I am thinking that we probably wouldn't care about him that much. It is the fact that he has both strengths and weaknesses that makes his tale interesting.

I won't even begin to compare the tale of Luke Skywalker and the tale of The Lord of the Rings. I will say that I really don't think PJ has done anything with the Aragorn character. I suspect that PB and FW are the main shapers of the characters. A female imprint appears throughout the movie (which is the reason for my PC comments) and most of the major plot changes are downplaying male parts and uplaying female parts. I'm not saying this is wrong from a movie standpoint, it just simply isn't Tolkien.

I again chastise Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate for not taking this bull by the horns. The only way to have assured a more accurate rendition of the book to screen was for direct Tolkien environment. We as Tolkien fans have little room to gripe when the author's own family wouldn't go to bat for the product.

 

[JMacEye]

Ouch, MM....that assessment of Aragorn, as PJ has portrayed him, is so correct it hurts. And, as always, despite my own desire to love these movies, you have reminded me of the sense of revulsion I had when I saw such things as this: PJ's Isildur "adaptation".... he came off as a sneering, selfish creep ...

Fit right in to Elrond's complete loathing of men.

In fact, Elrond raised Aragorn like his own son, and called him his "beloved'....who would ever know that from the way Elrond spoke of him?

And yes, Isildur did decide not to destroy the Ring when he had the opportunity. But PJ made him look evil rather than possessed by the desire to use the Ring for the Good of Gondor, a mistake many could have made...

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by JMacEye
Well, gosh, Grond, you had me going there for a moment, right up until you said you loved the changed plot....what did I miss?

LOL, only from a movie perspective. It is interesting to see how others will distort a story that I know and love so well. I enjoy the movie changes in the FOTR and TTT only when I completely disassociate them from the books. It is the only way that I can watch and enjoy them and still remain sane. I see them as inperfect but great in their own right. Someone has finally, nearly got it right.

 

[JMacEye]

That is what I hoped you meant

I tried very hard to do that with FOTR and mostly succeeded....that is why I have seen it so many more times.

With TTT, much harder to do...and the thing that is hard for many FADS to understand is: I really want to!...

This final assault on Aragorn and Anduril has been, for me, a huge blow, and I will not see it again for a long time. I had read the FOTR (for the 17th time) right before seeing TTT (just a couple of days)....

I will not do that again for ROTK

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by JMacEye
Ouch, MM....that assessment of Aragorn, as PJ has portrayed him, is so correct it hurts. And, as always, despite my own desire to love these movies, you have reminded me of the sense of revulsion I had when I saw such things as this: PJ's Isildur "adaptation".... he came off as a sneering, selfish creep ...

Fit right in to Elrond's complete loathing of men.

In fact, Elrond raised Aragorn like his own son, and called him his "beloved'....who would ever know that from the way Elrond spoke of him?

And yes, Isildur did decide not to destroy the Ring when he had the opportunity. But PJ made him look evil rather than possessed by the desire to use the Ring for the Good of Gondor, a mistake many could have made...

That business of Elrond was one of the things I took badly in FOTR. He was so contemptuous of Aragorn that one wondered why the man would stay under the roof of someone who thought so poorly of him - and made no pains to hide his feelings!

However, actually, with Isildur, I got the same feeling about the Ring as I did with Gollum: both were seduced by its beauty, not its power. "I will risk no hurt to it, the only fair thing..." Smeagol strangles Deagol because the gold is so "beautiful". In both instances, the Ring was at a moment of choice. In the first, with Isildur, it was a moment of dire peril; destruction lay at hand. It did not appeal to the man's desire for power (no matter what PJ and co. say), but his sense of beauty. The Ring actually "seduced" him in the true meaning of that word.

In Gollum's case, he was definitely the superior bearer (much closer than the other to its Master) and it seduced him in the same way. I do not think either "bearer" was moved with a desire for power or even (especially in Gollum's case) the understanding of what the Ring meant. Like a beautiful woman, it struck both individuals if not blind in actual sight, then blind in understanding, in the ability to think. Isildur refused to destroy Sauron even though both his father and brother - along with the great Elven King Gil Gilad - gave their lives for that purpose because he had been "captured" by the beauty not the power of the Ring. Gollum, too, acted out of a desire to possess a beautiful object, not a talisman of power.

Thus it is ever shown to us, that beauty is far more deadly than any blade and love can be more cruel than hate when it is perverted by the wicked.

 

[JMacEye]

Yes, that is quite an astutue observation, and I would have to agree, at least as much as we know about Isildur's motives.