book aragorn doesn't break toe while kicking a perished uruk's helmet in anguish. movie aragorn does. book 0 - 1 movie OH! DID YOU KNOW THAT VIGGO MORTENSEN *ACTUALLY* BROKE HIS TOE WHILE FILMING THAT SCENE? I BET YOU DIDN'T HAHA!
I’m really happy Mortensen’s son convinced him to say yes to the role. So many things happened just right for these movies to be made, and it’s quite the tale on its own.
I can’t take credit for the idea but the best way I’ve seen of describing the difference between the two is that Book Aragorn is the heir of Elendil but Movie Aragorn is the heir of Isildur. In the book, he was already ready and willing for the responsibility of being King. He had accepted the mantle, acted like he was already crowned and carried himself with the weight and authority worthy of a man of his heritage without being consumed by arrogance or pride. He was the embodiment of the best values of the world of men already, ready to right his ancestor’s wrongs and set the world to right to lead the world of men as their rightful sovereign. In the movie, however, he’s a character overcome with a lot more guilt, anxiety and insecurity about his destiny. He has no self-confidence about who he is meant to be as the shadow of Isildur’s failure still looms long over him and he is unsure of his ability to overcome it, and fearful that he might succumb to the same temptation if presented with it. He simply wishes to be a ranger and has no interest in being King, yet over the course of the movies proves that he is indeed a wise, stoic, capable and charismatic leader on more than one occasion. He proves to others, if not himself, that he has the right to bear that mantle before he accepts that he is worthy of accepting it himself. His journey is about accepting that he is not doomed to his forebear’s fate but is more than capable of fulfilling his own destiny as a man, and as a King. I don’t think either is good or bad, merely that they’re telling two very different stories for two very different purposes with the character while the movie still remains true to the overall themes and aspects of the character from the book within the boundary of achieving a different aim with him.
Though, there were times when Viggo did got hurt during the shooting for the LOTR movies. Particularly when he kicked a helmet so hard that he broke two of toes, screamed in agony over the pain, which inadvertently got added to the films for some accidental dramatics. Then, during that one scene where Aragorn fights a urukai in a Wrag ambush where he falls, Viggo nearly drowned while shooting this scene on screen. Which must've been a pretty horrific experience for this man.
One of the things I missed most from the movie was the moment you mentioned at Edoras. In that moment Aragorn declared himself. For with or without a kingdom he IS the descendant of Elendil, Elros, Beren & Luthien and Thingol & Melian. He IS the king of Arnor and Gondor with or without recognition. His is the only hand fit to touch that sword and he will suffer no other to do so. In that moment he draws a line that no true king would allow to be crossed.
Aragorn was one of the few beings in Middle Earth that struck fear on the heart of Sauron, a Maia. I didn't realize this until after reading the books several times.
I understand that the casting of Aragorn was originally given to another actor? But man, fate having it handed to Viggo Mortensen, was a perfect stroke of art. Jackson’s vision of movie Aragorn + Viggo’s portrayal -> chef’s kiss! The “unwitting” hero who grows into greatness, is always the classic best to capture audiences’ hearts.
several actors were considered, mortensen wasnt first choice. Watch and shudder: th-cam.com/users/shortslH05PNdPOnM Yes, we diodged the bullet of nicholas cage as aragorn!
Yep the Irish actor Stuart Townsend. There is an actual still frame of him as Aragorn. He did shoot a few scenes as Aragorn before he was replaced by Viggo.
I heard Viggo was considering turning down the role due to how sudden the request was and the need to stay in New Zealand for so long, and it was his son who convinced him to take the role as he was a fan of the books.
I haven't seen anyone talk about how Aragorn doesn't have any children, as he can only 'earn' the love of his life by reclaiming the united kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor. Thus the additional great burden of knowing that if he failed, Elendil's line - the last of direct descent from Numernorian royalty - would fail as well.
I’m sure there was more to it than that. As it was necessary through Galadriels setting them up to be together in the first place to unify the houses of the elves and men all into one line through the direct powerful bloodline of Beren and Lùthien and therefore Thingol and Melian bypassing the generations since Elros but also Elendil closely related to Elros via Aragorn so now eventually all of us have this connection. Which connects to those who tap into i higher forms of thought and even love for music etc etc.
Galadriel intentionally matched Arwen & Aragorn together while they were both visiting in Lothlorien? Arwen & Aragorn met in Rivendell, & that is where Aragorn fell in love with her, although it doesn’t sound like she felt the same at the time. Aragorn’s mother Gilraen warned him that he was aiming too high, and Elrond was not happy about it either, and Aragorn took heed of this and left Rivendell, to learn how to be a Ranger and to oppose Sauron’s forces. Many years later, he came to Lothlorien, seeking rest and shelter, and Galadriel allowed him to enter. We have this line in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen: “But Aragorn was grown to full stature of body and mind, and Galadriel bade him cast aside his wayworn raiment, and she clothed him in silver and white, with a cloak of elven-grey and a bright gem on his brow. Then more than any kind of Men he appeared, and seemed rather an Elf-lord from the Isles of the West. And thus it was that Arwen first beheld him again after their long parting; and as he came walking towards her under the trees of Caras Galadhon laden with flowers of gold, her choice was made and her doom appointed.” LOTR Appendices. To me, that makes it rather explicit that Galadriel wanted Aragorn to appear at his best. Why? Who could he possibly impress in Lothlorien, except for Galadriel’s grand-daughter? I think it is quite clear that she wanted them matched, and perhaps her foresight told her that they needed to be matched, as it was part of destiny, to begin the Dominion of Men (something Elrond probably also realised, but couldn’t willingly promote, since it would mean Arwen and Elrond would be parted forever). Plus there is the scene in Lorien, where Galadriel gives Aragorn the Elessar, which went from Galadriel to Celebrian to Arwen and then back to Galadriel in order that she give it as a gift to Aragorn. Again it speaks to me as a collaborative act, and part of Galadriel helping bring the two together: And Aragorn answered: 'Lady, you know all my desire, and long held in keeping the only treasure that I seek. Yet it is not yours to give me, even if you would; and only through darkness shall I come to it.' 'Yet maybe this will lighten your heart,' said Galadriel; 'for it was left in my care to be given to you, should you pass through this land.' Then she lifted from her lap a great stone of a clear green, set in a silver brooch that was wrought in the likeness of an eagle with outspread wings; and as she held it up the gem flashed like the sun shining through the leaves of spring. 'This stone I gave to Celebrían my daughter, and she to hers; and now it comes to you as a token of hope. In this hour take the name that was foretold for you, Elessar, the Elfstone of the house of Elendil! ' From LOTR FOTR BOOK ---- I can explain some more story about Aragorn and Arwen as it’s not shown in the movies at all. : Galadriel intentionally matched Arwen & Aragorn together while they were both visiting in Lothlorien! Arwen & Aragorn met in Rivendell, & that is where Aragorn fell in love with her, although it doesn’t sound like she felt the same at the time. Aragorn’s mother Gilraen warned him that he was aiming too high, and Elrond was not happy about it either, and Aragorn took heed of this and left Rivendell, to learn how to be a Ranger and to oppose Sauron’s forces. Many years later, he came to Lothlorien, seeking rest and shelter, and Galadriel allowed him to enter. We have this line in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen: “But Aragorn was grown to full stature of body and mind, and Galadriel bade him cast aside his wayworn raiment, and she clothed him in silver and white, with a cloak of elven-grey and a bright gem on his brow. Then more than any kind of Men he appeared, and seemed rather an Elf-lord from the Isles of the West. And thus it was that Arwen first beheld him again after their long parting; and as he came walking towards her under the trees of Caras Galadhon laden with flowers of gold, her choice was made and her doom appointed.” LOTR Appendices. To me, that makes it rather explicit that Galadriel wanted Aragorn to appear at his best. Why? Who could he possibly impress in Lothlorien, except for Galadriel’s grand-daughter? I think it is quite clear that she wanted them matched, and perhaps her foresight told her that they needed to be matched, as it was part of destiny, to begin the Dominion of Men (something Elrond probably also realised, but couldn’t willingly promote, since it would mean Arwen and Elrond would be parted forever). Plus there is the scene in Lorien, where Galadriel gives Aragorn the Elessar, which went from Galadriel to Celebrian to Arwen and then back to Galadriel in order that she give it as a gift to Aragorn. Again it speaks to me as a collaborative act, and part of Galadriel helping bring the two together: And Aragorn answered: 'Lady, you know all my desire, and long held in keeping the only treasure that I seek. Yet it is not yours to give me, even if you would; and only through darkness shall I come to it.' 'Yet maybe this will lighten your heart,' said Galadriel; 'for it was left in my care to be given to you, should you pass through this land.' Then she lifted from her lap a great stone of a clear green, set in a silver brooch that was wrought in the likeness of an eagle with outspread wings; and as she held it up the gem flashed like the sun shining through the leaves of spring. 'This stone I gave to Celebrían my daughter, and she to hers; and now it comes to you as a token of hope. In this hour take the name that was foretold for you, Elessar, the Elfstone of the house of Elendil! ' From LOTR FOTR BOOK
For me, the reason that "movie" Aragorn stands out is that, while the films did a great job of making everything look like I'd imagined it in my head when I first read the books back in (year redacted...let's just say some of the actors hadn't been born yet), Viggo's Aragorn did something different. I admit I wasn't sold on him at first because he didn't "look" like I imagined, but as the films went along, he embodied the characteristics of Aragorn better than I thought possible. Yeah, McKellan LOOKS like Gandalf, but Viggo IS Aragorn. As his acceptance of/confidence in his destiny grows throughout the films, his body language changes. His speech changes. His physicality and demeanor follows his character arc. At first he's just this ranger, and by the end he walks and talks like a king. It is an amazing performance.
Viggo quickly read LotR while heading to New Zealand. And he saw how closely Tolkien used the Norse Saga`s and mythology as a foundation in his writing. He knows the saga`s very well, and he knew which saga Tolkien used in the many different sub-plots or character arcs. I am just like you. I read "The Hobbit" in 5th grade when I got it as a birthday or Christmas gift in 1977. I was hooked immediately. I saw an interview with him telling us how he slowly revealed Aragorn by changing his speech and his mannerisms to reveal Aragorns true nature and power as a leader of men. A King. Pretty cool. But in my mind I have an image of every character as I see them, and always will. But there are times when I see Ian McKellen instead of "Gandalf" as he looks to me. Tolkien describes Gandalf very clearly. More than any other character. " Sharp eyes black as coal" and long bushy eyebrows, a silver sweeping beard, broad shoulders and average height, a long sharp nose, etc. The interview is here on YT with Vitto telling how he "unmasked Aragorn" by going from a Ranger to a King and Dunedain.
And what encapsulates the entirety of Tolkien's themes in my opinion? The below excerpt, narrated by the story's true hero no less: "It’s like in the great stories Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, and sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy. How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad happened. But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn’t. Because they were holding on to something." Frodo : "What are we holding on to, Sam?" Sam : "That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for."
Yes, some of the essential themes were expressed by "simple" folk like Sam. Tolkein wanted to express the virtues of a simple life and the folly of the pursuit of power. It was the hour of the Shire folk, who would in a way be more powerful than the greatest of the wise.
Aragorn is my fav character next to Samwise. I find they both are inspiring and admirable in their steadfast loyalty and both are very brave in their own way. We might not see as much struggle or development for Aragorn perhaps to become who he is compared to Samwise who really is thrown into a new to him dangerous world but reading the books and think about his circumstances he clearly had a lot of things to overcome and deal with. For me both are very strong people.
I do like both versions, but there are a couple of scenes in the books that are missed out because of the choices Jackson made. When the 3 walkers encounter Eomer & the Eothain coming back from destroying the orcs, the moment when Aragorn shows Anduril & declares himself as the heir of Elendil is amazing, not least the reaction of Gimli & Legolas. I also regret that because Eomer was banished the chance for him & Aragorn to develop their friendship is also lost, as that is one of the great friendhips in the book. One other point is that I interpreted the anyone who draws Elendil's sword other than the heir of Elendil moment, not as an action that Aragorn will take but as a fate laid on the sword, so that only Elendil's heir can wield it.
The first time I read The Lord of the Rings was over 40 years ago. It took me a while (a couple of viewings) to warm up to the movie version of Aragorn. Strider, the novel character, always seemed approachable and throughout the books he was both Strider the Dunedain and Aragorn, king to be. Tolkien made him approachable from the moment he follows Frodo back to his room and Gandalf's letter is read. When he says he " But I must admit,' he added with a queer laugh, 'that I hoped you would take to me for my own sake. A hunted man sometimes wearies of distrust and longs for friendship.'...." At that moment, he was completely approachable. (Tolkien was such a genius) He was knowledgeable, strong, faithful, and noble and was more than ready to realize his destiny. I struggled to understand why they took that away from him. I also struggled with the whole "romance" that was thrown into the movie. In the book, his love was as connected to his destiny as was his becoming king. Your explanation of his development over the span of the movies though makes sense and I suppose there was no way to show the connection to Arwen except in a visual way so I came to accept that also. I only came to like the character because Viggo Mortenson was, as you say, perfect for the part. Taking on the production of something so epic was a huge challenge and Peter Jackson did an admirable job. I don't think anyone could have done better.
I absolutely love Viggo Mortensen and he was a glorious Aragorn 🤍✨⚔🐴🏹🌳⛰🌊🌤🌕🤗💞 Aragorn IS one of the greatest complex inspiring HEROES in all of fiction IMO. 💯TOP 5 for me.
The sword is a symbol and proof of his position and destiny. Especially in the context of Tolkien’s world, it makes sense to guard it practically above anything else.
Aragorn in the books is the personification of everything “Kingly” as you read him doing some grandiose feat. Aragorn in the movies is an dunedain (offbranch of numenor) ranger that survived the exile of his people, which gave Aragorn animosity towards his bloodline until he reunited with Arwen.
I wouldn't even say Dunedain, just a warrior. Because Dunedain are totally cut off in the movies and are hardly ever mentioned. An average person wouldn't be able to tell you that Aragorn is meant to be a human with actual super strength, to them he's just another human.
@@nhmooytis7058 The movies are masterpieces but they do Isildur some injustice. In the books, while he does secumb to the seduction of the ring, he spends his time being a fair ruler who practically gave some power away instead of being power hungry. He comes to realize that he is not powerful enough to truly bend the ring to his will. That it will eventually overcome him. Isildur resolves to give the ring to Elrond but is killed on the way to Rivendel. It's a tragic story of a man that tries to right his wrong but ultimately fails. In the books isildur literally repented and was about to bring the ring to Rivendell and apologize as he recognized it was beyond him even for a great numenorean connected to the faithful line of the mighty Elendil ❤️❤️❤️❤️
Aragorn is also my favorite character in all of fiction. Ever since I met Strider, when reading the chapter At the Sign of the Prancing Pony when I was a teenager, he has fascinated me.
I just love the relationship we see between him and Boromir that we see in the (extended) movies and how it changes Aragorns view on not just men, but the men of Gondor specifically. How this, essentially, prince of Gondor gave everything just to defend two Hobbits that he befriended, regaining the honor he lost trying to take the Ring from Frodo. Having Aragorn wear Boromir's bracers afterwards as a tribute and a reminder (he even has them on in Arwens vision of him on his death bed) is a truly great touch.
I prefer the books Aragorn best. When the movies came out, I noticed the change in his character and didn’t like it. I can appreciate the ‘show, don’t tell’ like you mentioned in your video. But I argue that while Aragorn is not immortal he does live longer and is already pass death for most mortal men. He should me more relatable to elves and wizards than mortal men when it comes to the passing of time. Thus for him to be still undecided about his life in his late 80’s makes him younger in wisdom and more foolish in youth than someone who’s been through life already. So for a mortals lifespan he couldn’t decide what his fate was? He ran from his fate? And what about his love for Arwen? His journey of love took him decades to go from nothing to come to fruition. That’s incredible but to become King, I expect it to take a lifespan. The movie takes those decades and turns it into a year. Sometimes life takes a while. Patience and endurance are traits one needs and Aragorn in the books can teach us that.
So tell us how you'd write a protagonist Aragorn, rather than a secondary character Aragorn in the books? In the films he was promoted to a main character, and a protagonist requires a story arc that sees major changes occur in their personality. Book Aragorn had no such changes in his personality, because he wasn't a protagonist. Would you have kept him a secondary, supporting character, and reduced the time the films spent on him? So few people understand the difference between the mediums of prose and film, or just the craft of making a narrative in general. It is one thing to venerate Tolkien for being a great writer--it's another entirely to understand how to make a narrative in the first place, and what parts make a great story.
@@rikk319 Some excellent points to bring up. I'll start with pointing out that in books 2 and 3 they are split up between 2 separate journeys. The first journey is about Frodo, Sam, and Sméagol/Gollum, while the second journey follows the 3 Hunters (Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas), Gandalf, Pippin, and Mary. Granted, Aragorn does share the spotlight with a lot more characters, but the story does follow him all the way through as a protagonist in the books. Now in my opinion, a protagonist does not have to have a story arc that sees major changes in their personality. I believe what you’re referring to is known as a positive character arc, where basically the protagonist believes in some lie that the world tells them, and the protagonist must overcome that lie. Now when the protagonist overcomes that lie, yes, they do typically have a major change in their personality. But Aragorn isn't written as a positive arc. Aragorn is a protagonist with a flat arc. A flat arc is about a protagonist that doesn't believe in some lie of the world that they must overcome. Instead, the protagonist of a flat arc believes in a certain truth. For Aragorn that truth is that he must become the King of Gondor and reunite the kingdom. A protagonist of a flat arc never gives up to reform the world around them. It doesn't mean the protagonist can't have doubts about themself or the truth. The lie of the world for Aragorn is that Gondor needs no King, or that he isn't worthy to wield his ancestor’s sword Narsil. But a protagonist of a flat arc believes they can change the world without sacrificing their own beliefs. In the first book Aragorn believes the time has come for him to return as the King of Gondor. Aragorn believes these truths so much that shortly after we meet him in the first book, Aragorn has Narsil reforged into Anduril. So, in my opinion, I disagree with you that Aragorn would no longer be a protagonist if the movies took away his movie arc. Just give Aragorn his book arc and he's still a protagonist. As in the book, have the movies show that Aragorn believes in the truth that he is the heir of Elendil, and worthy to be the new King of Gondor. Show Aragorn that he is in the final phase of that possibility which has taken him decades to see the fruits of his labors and how steadfastness in his beliefs has guided him through the trials and tribulations of it all. And like the books have the first movie show Aragorn is the one who decides to reforge Narsil into Anduril, not Elrond in the third movie. .
I actually preferred Aragorn from the movies. In the books, he always sounded a bit too confident for my taste. In the movies, he's clearly afraid that he might make the mistakes as Isildur did, but he ultimately embraces his destiny once it becomes clear that he has to.
@@TheMacC117 The scene I hate the most is when, during Elrond's council, he somewhat downplays the role Gondor has been playing in keeping the rest of Middle-Earth safe, and says that the Dunedain under him were the ones actually keeping the peace. Gondor had to deal with the forces of Mordor, Harad and the Easterlings for years. The Dunedain had to deal with occasional orc and troll raids at most. Keep it in mind, as well, that it was the forces of Gondor that defeated Angmar, while Arnor fell apart.
I honestly feel the same way. The same goes with Eöwyn. When she went against the Witch King in the books, she was fearless and preached her name and linage. In the film, she was genuinely and understandably afraid but still stood her ground and did her best against an unnatural power. Just as true courage is knowing not when to take a life but when to spare one, true courage isn’t the absence fear but standing in the face of that fear.
@@teleportedbreadfor3days To be fair, several of the characters are more arrogant in the books. Gandalf sometimes acts like he is the only that knows how everyone should act, and calls others fools for not acting the way he expected.
There was a lot of Aragorn that was cut for the limited time of the movies but they did they very important thing of getting across how nobel he really was and likable which is rare to find in movie characters these days. You know he'll be the best king as he's one you can rely on. Such great casting for those movies.
Don't know if y'all remember but a commented on one of your posts about 3 years ago about my life falling apart and your videos helping me through a rough time. I got a lot of support on that comment and then life happened and I lost access to the account I posted it on. Just wanted to let you know I'm still here, doing better than I've ever done and I love your channel.
Aragorn is the quintessence of a heroic and lordly Man and Hero. He stands on principle forged in knowledge and wisdom from history, and adheres to the purpose he sees as his duty and privilege, regardless of personal cost. Truly an admirable character. And Viggo Mortensen captured him marvelously - even though in general I find the movies wanting. They are too gratuitously violent while wantonly changing some important characters.
In short, both the book and movie versions are done very well and convey what needs to be conveyed--the man destined to be great versus the one who grows into greatness, and all without sacrificing the virtues and strengths of Aragorn. Also, props to Viggo Mortensen who really buckled down and devoted himself to playing the character.
What I love is how well the two stories can coexist if you let them. Building off what you said about book Aragorn being more of a mythic hero, the two give me a sense of story vs realism. The books feel like a mythical tale from a bygone era, whereas the movies keep that magic, yet (to me at least) come off far more believable. As if the books are the more romanticized written account of what happened (as Tolkien liked to claim with the whole Redbook idea) and the movies are more of what ACTUALLY happened. Or vice versa if you prefer.
I think we missed something. In the book, as they enter Fangorn, Gimily says that their pursuit might lead to them only being able to sit with the hobbits and starve. Aragon says then that may be all we can do. It's remarkable that he seems willing to forsake the future of Middle Earth rather than let Merry and Pippin die alone in Fangorn. That is the behavior of a king that men will follow and die for.
Not Jeff here. I'm continually amazed that we are able to have discussions like this, because long ago, two little boys made it happen. The Hobbit was written as a story for children, so when it was shopped to Allen and Unwin, Mr. Unwin gave it to his 10 year old son Ranulf to critique. Ranulf liked it very much indeed, so The Hobbit was published. And the rest is literary history. Many years later, Viggo was offered the part of Aragorn. He was both unfamiliar with the books and reluctant to commit to multiple years of filming. His young son, Henry, who is a great fan of science fiction and fantasy, verbally dopeslapped him into taking the part. Henry explained that Aragorn is THE hero. I wonder if he would have forgiven Viggo if Dad has turned down the part! All hail to these unsung young heroes of Middle Earth!
As a general rule, if something doesn't make sense in the movie, that's where Peter Jackson deviated from the books. So one example is how easily Sauron is killed in the intro. He's set up as this super powered badass, but all you have to do is cut off his finger? That's not how it went down in the book, where the greatest man king and the greatest elf king had to double-team Sauron to strike down his body, but were killed in the effort (Isildur then cuts the ring from the corpse). Another one that bugs me is in the Council of Elrond, Boromir reacts to Aragorn by talking as if some "Aragorn" was known to be the Lost King of Gondor. But in the book, neither Boromir nor any of his people would know any heir of Isildur exists 3,000 years later, and the name Aragorn would mean nothing to him. These were well-guarded secrets, and took some explaining in the council. (In the full lore, Aragorn, who's older than he looks, had decades before gone to Gondor and proven himself a hero. But did so under an alias, and then disappeared like some mysterious cowboy saving the town and riding off into the sunset. Boromir would've been a kid or not even born yet.)
Expecting a film to have the time to explain every detail of a book is a Sisyphean task. They're two different artistic mediums, and just because they both tell narratives doesn't mean they tell them identically. It's the difference between them that makes it worth having the two different mediums to enjoy. Wishing a book and movie told identical stories is like wishing a painting and a song portrayed their subject identically. They're very different mediums.
I agree that while the movies were fantastic, some changes were unnecessary and bizarre. They came across as jarring to those who knew the books well. The part about Sauron being defeated by cutting off the ring was essential to having the ring itself as a character in the storyline and justifying it's corrupting power; if you desired power, possessing the ring would grant it.
@@rikk319 I don’t have a problem with small things. And I love the films for many reasons. But none of that pure and honest love will ever be given to Amazon’s rangs of gurlpowwah. ⭐️😂❤️
you make some good points, but imagine this. when one first chooses or accepts a path, there are stumbles, and doubts. it was possible to give us an Aragorn that had accepted his fate, yet was still in need of growth from that Ranger, to the King he needed to become. it would have been a bit more difficult to write, but you could reconcile both Aragorn's present between the two mediums, if their was say... a lore heavy game adaption as opposed to a button masher. (that will never happen, but it is an idea.)
First of all, I want to say this is another good video from you, and I do agree that the movie does the character justice in its own way. I also would have expanded on some elements that you touched on, mostly on whether or not audiences from 2001 would have been interested in a more faithful version of the character from the book. As such, the movie version was molded into a very common trope of our time: The Reluctant Hero. There are probably a dozen reasons for this, but reluctant heroes have been very prevalent in mainstream media for quite some time. Maybe people feel like they need a reason to do the right thing because being heroic is not easy and requires effort, and having a reason helps feel like that effort is worth spending. Common reasons have to do with revenge or justice or rescuing someone from danger, and it takes a chunk of the story for those reasons to settle in on the hero before he or she is finally onboard. This is also pretty useful as it does help the character fit the well-known Hero's Journey mold, making writing and plotting quite convenient. Rarely we do we have heroes that are willing to step up from the beginning (with Captain America being a notable recent exception, at least that I can think of). As a consequence, this makes movie Aragorn very much a product of his time, which happens quite often with adaptations. How many times have we seen modern adaptations of classic stories be reworked or re-envisioned by modern creators, often changing various elements to do so? Just as Tolkien was influenced by classic mythology, Peter Jackson and company were influenced by their own time period and circumstances: making a big budget movie for a mainstream audience at the beginning of the 21st century. That being said, as you mention, the movie writers took great care to show Aragorn's growth in the King and made sure that the movie version carried many of the elements from the books, even if the timing of those elements was different. They didn't just turn him into a stereotypical reluctant hero and call it a day. And I think that's why, despite knowing and recognizing the many differences between the books and the movies for Lord of the Rings, I'm not bothered by them, because the movie writers knew that adapting things from a book to a movie isn't a simple or straight-forward process. Instead of fixating on the details, they focused on the themes and why each character or element was important, and sought to find ways to bring those themes across in an audio-visual medium. The best adaptations are not ones that get every detail right, but understand the important pieces and rebuild the story with those pieces as the core. And when it comes to the Lord of the Rings movies, they're probably the best adaptation we could have gotten at the time. I don't think there's anything wrong with being able to decide which version is better, because each version is designed for a different purpose, making it more of an apples-to-oranges scenario. I know that the internet likes to have its "winners" and "losers," but I don't think there needs to be any kind of reconciliation between the two presentations of Aragorn, and that one can appreciate both, as you have done.
Frankly I can't really decide which version i enjoy more either. But man I love the scene in the films when Elrond gives Aragorn Anduril so much. It gives me such great goosebumps, and man I wish Tolkien did that in the books too, haha! Excellent video, Yoystan! :)
i feel like a thing that Nostalgia Critic said is kind of true (when he compared Ralph Bahkshi vs Peter Jackson) the book (which Bahkshi based his characters on more 'directly) has Aragorn as a man who wants to be king and is good as a king (simplifying it because it's more then this) where as the Movie is more of a man who almost doesn't want it (playing into the 'bane of isildur). Regardless of the character, Aragorn is an amazing character, wether book or movie
Plus, John Hurt played Aragorn in the Bakshi version. Personally although Viggo was good, John Hurt really nailed the character. Honestly, I think he was the best portrayal.
"There is always hope." One of the few changes that I actually prefer. First off........Viggo......that should b argument enough but I'll cont. 🤣 Aragorn in the films was more relatable to viewers; we see him grow and develop into something completely different then wen we first met him. That gives hope to us who watch. That we can change and become better than wen we started out. He is the every man. Either way, long live the king 👑
Interesting - I always took the threat about drawing his sword was that there was a power in the Sword which would slay anyone other than the Heir that drew the sword :)
One of the problems with the movie Aragorn, is the character they force on Elrond - condemning him to being an antagonist in the Aragorn/Arwen relationship.
He only did what a good dad was supposed to do, which was; guide his daughter before she throws her life away instead of living a life of eternity for temporary love.
The films didn't have the time to get into the difference of eternities after death between elves and humans. Arwen didn't suddenly become mortal in the books--in the end she willingly gave up her life after Aragorn died of natural causes. Tolkien noted the importance was that elves and humans go to different places (their "dooms") after death. Arwen wanted to spend her eternity with Aragorn after death...but this also meant that she'd never get to see her parents after death, as elves and humans go to different "heavens".
A few ideas for videos I would love watch.. 1) what did The wizards do during the 1st age as the Maiar? 2) what happens to the balrogs after they die? 3) which of the maiar & valar travelled to middle earth 4) everything fatty Bolger did during the LOTR. 5) which location, buildings & settlements are the oldest in middle earth.
When first watching the movie, after having read the books in two languages, I found the movie Aragorn too thin and weak, too uncertain, but after watching countless times, I came to accept and enjoy Vigos awesome display.
Book!Aragorn is definitely more nuanced than people give credit for, I feel. There's no doubt he wants to become king, but he also has a major crisis of doubt after Gandalf falls. His heart desires to go to Gondor to pursue his claim, but he also has a duty to guide the Ringbearer. This throws him into major indecision that nearly derails the entire mission. We see his indecision's effects clearly through multiple passages on the voyage from Lorien. There's the note Tolkien makes about Aragorn's mind being "eased" by the gift of boats from Celeborn (which allows him to put off making a choice of path for many days). Later, we also see Aragorn's sudden (and rather uncharacteristic) panic when the Fellowship tries to find Frodo at the Falls of Rauros ("We shall all be scattered and lost!" groaned Aragorn, and then, "Alas! An ill fate is on me this day, and all that I do goes amiss.") He is so panicked he doesn't even stop to think like Samwise does, and leaves no one with the boats at all. This is *not* a moment that showcases his leadership skills; it's the low point in Aragorn's story. After Frodo makes the decision to leave the Fellowship permanently, it frees Aragorn to choose his own path. I like to think he may have even take some inspiration from Frodo's choice to "do the harder thing", because after the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn starts making more bold and decisive choices; choosing to use the Palantir, take the Paths of the Dead, etc. He's learns something post-Fellowship that I don't think the movie captures. A more faithful adaptation would've played this arc up instead of making Aragorn seem like a green rookie throughout (I still cringe a little in the Two Towers movie when he runs into a group of women and children and screams ORCS WE'RE UNDER ATTACK with no other instructions lol). I enjoy the movies and love Viggo Mortensen in the role, but I'd love to see a more nuanced take that's more similar to the book one day.
I agree - the movie version doesn’t behave like someone who served King Thengel, and Steward Ecthelion II as Thorongil. He seemed like someone who was in fact riding his first rodeo. The book one didn’t, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have doubts. And the major crisis of confidence he had was exactly the one you describe.
The movies let down Tolkien's story. As time goes on, IMO, the true reason Jackson adapted LOTR was to make it a vehicle for his VFX company Weta Digital.
I think a lot of people read the books with the Aragorn from the movies in mind and don't fully understand the character Tolkien wrote. Furthermore, many people including youtubers, have been over the years canonizing the movies in their minds. Perhaps without intent or realization. I love the movies, but the books are just bounds and leaps better than that, and unlike many others who think the PJ films are perfect, I do wish that a show is made that is faithful to the books (Tolkien).
The more I contemplate the movie treatment of aragorn the more I always am thankful for the fact that it was not in fact played by Stuart Townsend. For how the movie altered him, there was no other choice but mortensen.
This is a topic I've actually thought a lot about as well, since Aragorn's character was so different in the movie than how he was in the book. Yet, I agree that I like both portrayals, though I like the movie version a little more. The movie version seems more relatable and humble, and therefore more likeable, to me than the book's portrayal. And that's saying a lot for me since I tend to be more of a canonical purist when it comes to adaptations.
On a less serious note, one of the differences that both me and my friends had a bit of a laugh about was how often book Aragorn souts 'Elendil!' To a point where its become a bit of an inside joke among us. Great video as always. Cant wait to watch more :)
“Why Tolkien Can’t Be Counterfeited” video touches on this at one point but shows true significance of it and why the orca and other fell fans fowl beings become afraid as they know full well the might if the Faithful Númenoreans ! Frightened the worst of Saurons mightiest ghouls and orcs ran away even with embodied Sauron at the helm. The very presence of them scared them shiteless. Even Sauron as Annatar couldn’t see him winning at all let alone surviving so he pretended to surrender! Rad cool hey? Haha
I remember in the book him lamenting about how all his decisions went ill. Especially when Gandalf was lost. He was more of a mythological character but also unsure of himself which made him approachable. The movies showed this also.
4:45 I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way, Aragorn is my favourite Lord of the Rings character in both the books and the movies, the movies really go to show how changes can still be made that impact the larger character development of a character without being a misinterpretation of the character from the books.
Wonderful analysis as usual, chaps. It's fascinating how the changes to Aragorn worked so well because we were taken along the journey for Aragorn's ascension The films would have been much less loved and remembered if the total sum of changes brought to Aragorn in the films that made him too far removed from the books and one you couldn't become invested in. I think Viggo Mortensen could have played Aragorn exactly as he was in the books and he would have been like a figure of mythology coming to life. It certainly would have been glorious to behold. However, because Viggo was cast for an altered version of that character to be played be a different actor (Stuart Townsend), all of those doubts, uncertainties and his arc of choosing to become King of Gondor had a strength and gravitas conveyed through an actor who hewed closer to the mythical book character in appearance and presence.
Firstly, thank you for adding accurate depictions of Aragorn by some artists, showing his lack of facial hair. I believe this detail should have been noted, even if you were focusing on character traits in his personage. While some might look at this as a small detail that has little meaning, Tolkien took great pains to make note of it and as such it should not be dismissed. The more-than-just-a-man writing of the character of Aragorn by Tolkien was intentional for readers. Tolkien described in some ways the very best of what we could be and the very best of the children of Ilúvatar through Aragorn's heritage and purpose. He was indeed set apart through this lineage, not only being noble of birth, but of a people unique in both physical and mental prowess, yet displaying the humility and fortitude of many of his forebearers, along with a love for peoples not lesser, but rather unique and deserving of respect. And, at last, reuniting the 1st and 2nd born of Eru, his union brought balance to the kindreds and a deeper connection to a line that transcended the bounds of Arda.
When hes in Edoras talking to the guards he's not saying he will fight them if they draw the sword but that it would literally curse them to draw it. They would simply die or be cursed by a spell.
Speaking as someone who hasn't read the books. I like how the movie Aragorn gave Arwen more agency. The scenes with her and her father sound better with his quest not BEING about doing what is necessary to be with her, it puts the agency on her to push her father to push him to his ultimate goal, which felt great.
Personally I like the book version so much better. Maybe it the “mythological” type that appeals to me. There is so much more depth to the character(s) to me in the book. It’s the unseen things that can’t be portrayed on film but can be inspired in our imaginations with words. I think of when Aragorn meets Eomer the first time and the aura that he portrays (and other characters too, Denethor, Faremir, Imrahil, etc) there is that hidden power within that brings so much more depth. It’s the same thing, but to a greater degree,that we see when Aragorn encounters Frodo at the end of The Fellowship (film) or in Sam when he tells Frodo, “I can’t carry it for you but I can carry you.” It’s the deep depth of character in the characters. I love it and it’s what I missed in the movies. Great video. It was a pleasure to watch. 🍻
I think movie Aragorn not desiring the kingship from the start really hits on a good theme that the best leaders are the ones who don't solely desire power or seek it out for their own selfish purposes. He is a great example of servant leader in the movies who is there to aid any who need help. I think this fits the religious theme also that "those who who make themselves last will become first." Another thing I like about movie Aragorn is he portrays a positive model of masculinity that need not only to be strong and brawny but fights and kills reluctantly when duty calls and can take moments to mourn over the lost (that Boromir scene) as well.
Book vs movie Aragorn is always an interesting debate, but i will make just 2 points here. 1. When you compare the 2. Movie Aragorn is much more of a man, someone anyone can identify with. He is meant to be part of our link into the world, he struggles with himself and his decisions. Much like how Frodo is so much weaker in the movies vs the books. While Book Aragorn is a man who knows what is expected of him and his fate. He knows truly what should happen, should he fail. You can see this in his statement about his sword in the book, "Where this any other blade, i would do as he asked." The sword was a sign of his doom of his fate a burden alone he must bare, like the burden Frodo alone must bare. 2. This leads into my second point. Of the statement of any who drew it but the heir would die. Is similar to Thor's hammer, or the sword in the stone in other myths. OR even the ring itself. I forget who said it, though it could have been Sam, "It is perilous to mess in the affairs of wizards." And so to it would be perilous to mess with the sword. It was a sign of things to come, and to mess with that fate was to chance fate being brought down on you. Only those destine to use it could, and to any other it could mean there swift death. We could also say this is similar to the Silmarils. It is also likely that like the Arkenstone, with Thorin, to Aragorn the sword was a treasure beyond all the riches he knew. But that is my view on the matter.
I personally prefer the book version, although the movie version is still very respectable. Wholeheartedly agree on Viggo Mortensen being an excellent cast for the role, especially considering all of the behind-the-scenes stuff that showed how thoroughly he gave his all to the role. I _do_ feel like it's a bit silly that his more delayed acceptance of his destiny meant Elrond casually made a months-long journey by himself to deliver Anduril, compared to his sons and the Rangers joining Aragorn for the coming battles and Anduril being reforged before the Fellowship ever left Rivendell, but it's hardly the most egregious change the films made.
I love the scene where Eowyn gives Aragorn food that she made and he doesn’t tell her that it’s really bad 😅 he’s kind at heart and humble in the movies ❤
I grew up not knowing the books. I knew the movies were based on books, but I had not read them. I should have, considering I read other fantasy novels and found myself reading four-five hundred page books in the span of just a few nights before bed. However I simply was not aware of the books before the movies came along. So I decided to watch the movies first. I got to go into the cinema not knowing a THING about the lore. I had no idea about the premise, no idea about the task at hand. None of the characters were familiar to me. As such I was devastated when Gandalf "died". Such a kindly character that perished really hit me hard. But just as much as the pain of his death hurt me, the reveal of his return overjoyed me. Aragorn was, to me, portrayed as the way a man should behave. A good role model. A brave man that seeks to do good with what he has and accepts responsibilities he might not originally have wanted. I could imagine Aragorn preferring a calm life with his love Arwen. Even just the two of them alone if need be. It would have been easily just as, if not more, comfortable than that of a King. Yet he took the role and improved the world upon doing such. I think he is a great character in both representations. Aspects of both that men should aspire to embody to at least some extent.
Thank you for a fascinating analysis. Both Aragorns are wonderful and, although the movie version is more human and less epic, that makes him more relatable. I like your description of him as more of a protagonist. His film character also does a great job showing the psychological burden he's had to bear. Aragorn was raised in the household of Elrond, who has a clear contempt for men, including their kings, after witnessing Isildur's weakness with the ring. Movie Aragorn has clearly internalised much of that harsh judgement. It's great watching his conviction grow throughout the trilogy.
I enjoyed your review and largely agree with the suppositions and conclusions. I actually wish you would have discussed the beheading of The Mouth of Sauron more as this action is so contradictory to Aragorn’s staunch adherence to code and morality. One does not behead a messenger or ambassador on the battlefield, and he above all would adhere to this obligation. Beheading him did nothing to change the fact that the armies of Mordor would pour out and take on this outnumbered group of free men. Therefore, I simply cannot see Aragorn taking this action.
I absolutely agree with you. While the movie version may have changed him somewhat, the core of the character remained the same. You still have one of the most noble and badass characters in fiction. And Vigo absolutely nailed the character even with Peter Jackson's changes in the movies. There are some characters where you can complain about the book to movie adaptation, but I don't think that Aragorn is one of them.
That would be a very interesting theory. If the Ring wasn't discovered during Aragorn's time, how would he re-unite the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor while striving against the Threat of Sauron? Also I think the sword of Narsil wasn't really pointed out that many times in the book, unless Aragorn was directly pointing it out and what it represented. I really do like in the movie version making Aragorn much more of a torn man, who wants to use his birthright as a tool to make the world a better place, but at the same time is ashamed of what his ancestor did and fears he'll follow the same path and so forth to make Anduril a much more important relic and it really helps builds Aragorns character arc from Ranger to King and makes it a much more pivotal moment in RotK.
One of my biggest gripes about the depiction of Aragorn is his physical characterization. Tolkien clearly stated in one his letters that all human descendants of Luthien Tinuviel were beardless, just like the Elves, and connects Aragorn even further to his elvish ancestry (at least partially, and somewhat diluted over time...nevertheless....). As far as a preference for the movie version versus book version, I always prefer the "original" version, hence I prefer the book, although as pointed out in the video, both versions have a lot of good things going for them. Aragorn has always been one of my favorite characters, if not my favorite, because he encapsulates so much of the history of the Edain and the Elves of the First Age, the love of Luthien and Beren, and through their granddaughter ELwing and her marriage to Earendiul, the lineage of all the great kings of the Three Houses of Men that encountered the Elves. Men of the West does a great job of pointing out part of this complex history in the video on the history of the Elvish Royal Family...in which, towards the end, the video shows how the marriage of Arwen and Aragorn, fraught with so much history, brings together the sundered lines of Elros and Elrond...and leads the way into the Fourth Age.
I first read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy before the animated attempts. More than once. The Aragorn in the books wasn't as relatable to my '60's/70's self as the Aragorn of the movies. I lay that down solely to the period in which the books were written. That should not be taken as criticism, it's not. Just an observation. Both are good.
Man, the Movies and Book Aragorn are so interesting Characters in their own way I will ask my family whom they Prefer!!! I find it funny I talked about your Faramir Video to my Family right before my mum met Book!Faramir, soon she will be on the OathBreakers, and I wanna know who is my Family's opinion is...I will Comment it to my Comment!!! Thanks, Mellon for telling how Aragorn has Changed from Book to Movie, Until Galadriel and Celeborn's Love Story...Marion Baggins Out!!!!
I think both versions did him justice! Though I can’t help but wonder what the movies would be like if the actors for Aragorn and Boromir swapped roles
@@neuralmute “Whether by the sword or the slow decay of time, Aragorn will die.” (Shows a dramatic hypothetical battle moment of Sean Bean Aragorn dying.) They would’ve used a premonition as their chance to get Sean Bean his death scene 😂
@@jefffinkbonner9551 Clever in canon work around! I'm honestly surprised that *anyone* (who hadn't read the books) was surprised when Ned Stark was beheaded in S1 of Game of Thrones. Tell me that wasn't written all over the wall.
It struck me that Aragorn was warning the gatekeepers, I could be wrong, but I recall the sheath of Narsil had an elvish magic to it that warned against anyone but Aragorn drawing the blade. A kind of curse, not that Aragorn would kill whomever himself.
You can say whatever about movie Aragorn but you can't say Viggo Mortensen didn't put his heart and soul into the role. The man was insisted on doing all his own stunts and put his body on the line. Everyone knows about the broken toe. But in FotR when Lurtz throw's Aragorn's knife back at him and Aragorn deflects it that was real. Wrong timing and he gets a knife in the face. Then in TT when he was floating in the river he almost drown. He never went anywhere without his sword and would practice relentlessly. True dedication to the role
I am the typical book stickler, and I can tell you that in my own opinion the way Aragorn develops in the movies is significantly more engaging than in the books in so far as we get to go on this journey of self-realization with him. It also helps that as you stated and I fully agree: Aragorn, in my mind IS Viggo.
I feel the same way, both Aragorn are good. Book Aragorn has a longer quest and years of travel and lots of interactions. movie we don't get back story, but character development and journey are still there. they are so well written that either way is a good character.
I like the book version more. If only he had that Kingly feel underneath the ranger in the first movie I would like both equally. I remember the council of Elrond where he publicly shy's away from his title and in the extra scenes where he openly voices his distrust of Gondor's strength/integrity to Boromir regarding the ring.
I hope you you do videos like this on all the main characters. I haven't read the books in a long time, I remember my dad reading me and my brother the books leading up to the movies coming out
Nice description I always felt both versions were different cause I read the books a long time ago after seeing the films, but your description made me remember that to me they’re similar yet different. Also congratulations on getting the spear of Eomer and maybe a future video you could give an inspection of the spear?
I've seen a lot of people online categorizing fictional characters as either the soldier, poet, or king. Aragorn is one of those rare characters in fiction who is all three.
The problem though is forcing certain literature into the copy and paste Hollywood idea of what a movie "should be" so characters like Aragorn will always need to be changed to fit into that mould.
Good to see this finally, as it does frustrate me when one of the critisms of the dreadful RoP is that they change characters or they're too short or wrong hair. But PJ did fundamentally change Aragorns character in LoTR (or perhaps one could look at it that we saw him at an earlier stage of his development towards being king). I for one never cared for Aragorns arogance in the books (probably because I disagree with inherited titles), whilst in the films we see him actually earn the right to lead the people of middle earth. Regardless of my opinion. what Jackson did was prove you could change characters, styles, who said what, leave out whole chunks, even story ines and yet still have some of the finest films ever made that pleased most people most of the time.
Honestly, i feel like the movies got MANY things better than the books - but of course, the PURPOSE of the book was different. It was to be a long epic tale that is read and enjoyed slowly, while on the other hand, a film NEEDS more tension, a more dynamic pace. It is very strictly time-limited, so it has to do more in the time it has... and i feel the LOTR movies did just that very well!
The sense I have from book Aragorn is that while he works toward restoring the union of the two kingdoms (which includes even bringing one back into existence, basically), it is not something he would ever force. It's the kind of thing that will happen when its time has come. What you do in the meantime is attend to what you can in support of that eventuality and whatever good you can in general. It's very Gandalf-ish of him, really, though Gandalf is known to give more of a push to things when he deems it necessary. 😆
In the appendices it mentions he's known by many names in many lands and is aware of myriad cultures and languages. But in the movie you have to pay attention to how he speaks. He has a vaguely Cornish accent around the Hobbits in Bree, his Elvish accent colours his words in Rivendell, and he adopts a bit of the local accent in Rohan and Gondor. It's subtle but "book accurate".
In the book Aragorn did have doubts early on in his life: "‘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 it may come to pass is hidden from me." I thought it was great to see him overcoming those doubts during the events of the movie, instead of already being the confident mythological hero.
Personally, it felt to me a bit odd how Aragorn's main driving motive was so different (and also that Arwen was dying because of the Ring). I might prefer Aragorn as an overarching mythical figure while we focus primarily on the Hobbits, considering that even when the Hobbits are not around, we typically receive the viewpoint narrative from Gimli (which makes sense, because Dúrin's Folk were invented to be characters in a children's book). Frankly, if anything, I wish we had gotten more Gimli stuff to elevate Aragorn in his eyes if we wanted to flesh out Aragorn more. Alternatively, I think I would prefer if Peter Jackson had just fleshed out Aragorn's motives, as contained in the Appendices, earlier in the movie without so greatly changing them. Either way, my least favorite part is the spontaneous murder of the Mouth of Sauron. Suggestions of people I would like to see done next: Frodo, Merry & Pippin, Théoden, Denethor, Treebeard, Bombur, Thranduil, and Thorin.
I love both versions of the character. I would say that I connected with the movie version of Aragorn more, as he's presented as someone who is caught between two different cultures, and who is even critical of his "home" culture, that of Men. That struggle to figure out where you belong really clicked for me as a TCK (Third Culture Kid), specifically an American who grew up overseas. In the books, Aragorn seems fairly confident in who he is and in the dual cultural legacies he is a part of. In the movies, he seems to have more doubts that he ultimately has to overcome, which really resonated with me.
The books are from the perspective of the Hobbits and don't give much inside into the non-Hobbit characters' thoughts an development. In a movie of such complex storylines however it makes a lot of sense to create more points of identification and show more character development. And while the Hobbits still frame everything, the movies do a great job in showing complex development inside many other characters. Maybe a little misguided in Faramir, but perfectly reasonable in Aragorn. It's till so out of my comprehension how creating this adaptation was even possible. How undeserving we are of those masterpieces.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
book aragorn doesn't break toe while kicking a perished uruk's helmet in anguish. movie aragorn does.
book 0 - 1 movie
OH! DID YOU KNOW THAT VIGGO MORTENSEN *ACTUALLY* BROKE HIS TOE WHILE FILMING THAT SCENE? I BET YOU DIDN'T HAHA!
🤣🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍
The throwing knife was real too
Viggo chipped his tooth too, I think? Very mortal but very understandable
@@simoncss1 Orlando broke several ribs
Everyone knows that. Its the most famous fun fact about the films
I’m really happy Mortensen’s son convinced him to say yes to the role. So many things happened just right for these movies to be made, and it’s quite the tale on its own.
I can’t take credit for the idea but the best way I’ve seen of describing the difference between the two is that Book Aragorn is the heir of Elendil but Movie Aragorn is the heir of Isildur.
In the book, he was already ready and willing for the responsibility of being King. He had accepted the mantle, acted like he was already crowned and carried himself with the weight and authority worthy of a man of his heritage without being consumed by arrogance or pride. He was the embodiment of the best values of the world of men already, ready to right his ancestor’s wrongs and set the world to right to lead the world of men as their rightful sovereign.
In the movie, however, he’s a character overcome with a lot more guilt, anxiety and insecurity about his destiny. He has no self-confidence about who he is meant to be as the shadow of Isildur’s failure still looms long over him and he is unsure of his ability to overcome it, and fearful that he might succumb to the same temptation if presented with it. He simply wishes to be a ranger and has no interest in being King, yet over the course of the movies proves that he is indeed a wise, stoic, capable and charismatic leader on more than one occasion. He proves to others, if not himself, that he has the right to bear that mantle before he accepts that he is worthy of accepting it himself. His journey is about accepting that he is not doomed to his forebear’s fate but is more than capable of fulfilling his own destiny as a man, and as a King.
I don’t think either is good or bad, merely that they’re telling two very different stories for two very different purposes with the character while the movie still remains true to the overall themes and aspects of the character from the book within the boundary of achieving a different aim with him.
Excellent way to put it: heir of Elendil vs heir of Isildur. Thank you for that one sentence summation.
Briliant
Fantastic perspective to throw at this debate! Thank you for sharing
Well said and I see it
This is spot on. Couldn’t have said it any better.
Aragorn is such an awesome character in both books and movies. It's no wonder Viggo Mortensen did the character justice.
Though, there were times when Viggo did got hurt during the shooting for the LOTR movies. Particularly when he kicked a helmet so hard that he broke two of toes, screamed in agony over the pain, which inadvertently got added to the films for some accidental dramatics. Then, during that one scene where Aragorn fights a urukai in a Wrag ambush where he falls, Viggo nearly drowned while shooting this scene on screen. Which must've been a pretty horrific experience for this man.
One of the things I missed most from the movie was the moment you mentioned at Edoras. In that moment Aragorn declared himself. For with or without a kingdom he IS the descendant of Elendil, Elros, Beren & Luthien and Thingol & Melian. He IS the king of Arnor and Gondor with or without recognition. His is the only hand fit to touch that sword and he will suffer no other to do so. In that moment he draws a line that no true king would allow to be crossed.
And the response of the Rohirrim to legends becoming real people.
Aragorn was one of the few beings in Middle Earth that struck fear on the heart of Sauron, a Maia. I didn't realize this until after reading the books several times.
I understand that the casting of Aragorn was originally given to another actor? But man, fate having it handed to Viggo Mortensen, was a perfect stroke of art. Jackson’s vision of movie Aragorn + Viggo’s portrayal -> chef’s kiss! The “unwitting” hero who grows into greatness, is always the classic best to capture audiences’ hearts.
several actors were considered, mortensen wasnt first choice.
Watch and shudder: th-cam.com/users/shortslH05PNdPOnM
Yes, we diodged the bullet of nicholas cage as aragorn!
Yep the Irish actor Stuart Townsend. There is an actual still frame of him as Aragorn. He did shoot a few scenes as Aragorn before he was replaced by Viggo.
@@Alexs.2599 Stuart didn't take the role seriously compared to Viggo. He's a younger man than Viggo as well, and didn't have the gravitas necessary.
@@rikk319 Yes very true. He was totally not right for the role.
I heard Viggo was considering turning down the role due to how sudden the request was and the need to stay in New Zealand for so long, and it was his son who convinced him to take the role as he was a fan of the books.
I haven't seen anyone talk about how Aragorn doesn't have any children, as he can only 'earn' the love of his life by reclaiming the united kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor. Thus the additional great burden of knowing that if he failed, Elendil's line - the last of direct descent from Numernorian royalty - would fail as well.
Very good point
I’m sure there was more to it than that. As it was necessary through Galadriels setting them up to be together in the first place to unify the houses of the elves and men all into one line through the direct powerful bloodline of Beren and Lùthien and therefore Thingol and Melian bypassing the generations since Elros but also Elendil closely related to Elros via Aragorn so now eventually all of us have this connection. Which connects to those who tap into i higher forms of thought and even love for music etc etc.
Galadriel intentionally matched Arwen & Aragorn together while they were both visiting in Lothlorien?
Arwen & Aragorn met in Rivendell, & that is where Aragorn fell in love with her, although it doesn’t sound like she felt the same at the time. Aragorn’s mother Gilraen warned him that he was aiming too high, and Elrond was not happy about it either, and Aragorn took heed of this and left Rivendell, to learn how to be a Ranger and to oppose Sauron’s forces.
Many years later, he came to Lothlorien, seeking rest and shelter, and Galadriel allowed him to enter. We have this line in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen:
“But Aragorn was grown to full stature of body and mind, and Galadriel bade him cast aside his wayworn raiment, and she clothed him in silver and white, with a cloak of elven-grey and a bright gem on his brow. Then more than any kind of Men he appeared, and seemed rather an Elf-lord from the Isles of the West. And thus it was that Arwen first beheld him again after their long parting; and as he came walking towards her under the trees of Caras Galadhon laden with flowers of gold, her choice was made and her doom appointed.” LOTR Appendices.
To me, that makes it rather explicit that Galadriel wanted Aragorn to appear at his best. Why? Who could he possibly impress in Lothlorien, except for Galadriel’s grand-daughter? I think it is quite clear that she wanted them matched, and perhaps her foresight told her that they needed to be matched, as it was part of destiny, to begin the Dominion of Men (something Elrond probably also realised, but couldn’t willingly promote, since it would mean Arwen and Elrond would be parted forever).
Plus there is the scene in Lorien, where Galadriel gives Aragorn the Elessar, which went from Galadriel to Celebrian to Arwen and then back to Galadriel in order that she give it as a gift to Aragorn. Again it speaks to me as a collaborative act, and part of Galadriel helping bring the two together:
And Aragorn answered: 'Lady, you know all my desire, and long held in keeping the only treasure that I seek. Yet it is not yours to give me, even if you would; and only through darkness shall I come to it.'
'Yet maybe this will lighten your heart,' said Galadriel; 'for it was left in my care to be given to you, should you pass through this land.' Then she lifted from her lap a great stone of a clear green, set in a silver brooch that was wrought in the likeness of an eagle with outspread wings; and as she held it up the gem flashed like the sun shining through the leaves of spring.
'This stone I gave to Celebrían my daughter, and she to hers; and now it comes to you as a token of hope. In this hour take the name that was foretold for you, Elessar, the Elfstone of the house of Elendil! ' From LOTR FOTR BOOK
----
I can explain some more story about Aragorn and Arwen as it’s not shown in the movies at all. : Galadriel intentionally matched Arwen & Aragorn together while they were both visiting in Lothlorien!
Arwen & Aragorn met in Rivendell, & that is where Aragorn fell in love with her, although it doesn’t sound like she felt the same at the time. Aragorn’s mother Gilraen warned him that he was aiming too high, and Elrond was not happy about it either, and Aragorn took heed of this and left Rivendell, to learn how to be a Ranger and to oppose Sauron’s forces.
Many years later, he came to Lothlorien, seeking rest and shelter, and Galadriel allowed him to enter. We have this line in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen:
“But Aragorn was grown to full stature of body and mind, and Galadriel bade him cast aside his wayworn raiment, and she clothed him in silver and white, with a cloak of elven-grey and a bright gem on his brow. Then more than any kind of Men he appeared, and seemed rather an Elf-lord from the Isles of the West. And thus it was that Arwen first beheld him again after their long parting; and as he came walking towards her under the trees of Caras Galadhon laden with flowers of gold, her choice was made and her doom appointed.” LOTR Appendices.
To me, that makes it rather explicit that Galadriel wanted Aragorn to appear at his best. Why? Who could he possibly impress in Lothlorien, except for Galadriel’s grand-daughter? I think it is quite clear that she wanted them matched, and perhaps her foresight told her that they needed to be matched, as it was part of destiny, to begin the Dominion of Men (something Elrond probably also realised, but couldn’t willingly promote, since it would mean Arwen and Elrond would be parted forever).
Plus there is the scene in Lorien, where Galadriel gives Aragorn the Elessar, which went from Galadriel to Celebrian to Arwen and then back to Galadriel in order that she give it as a gift to Aragorn. Again it speaks to me as a collaborative act, and part of Galadriel helping bring the two together:
And Aragorn answered: 'Lady, you know all my desire, and long held in keeping the only treasure that I seek. Yet it is not yours to give me, even if you would; and only through darkness shall I come to it.'
'Yet maybe this will lighten your heart,' said Galadriel; 'for it was left in my care to be given to you, should you pass through this land.' Then she lifted from her lap a great stone of a clear green, set in a silver brooch that was wrought in the likeness of an eagle with outspread wings; and as she held it up the gem flashed like the sun shining through the leaves of spring.
'This stone I gave to Celebrían my daughter, and she to hers; and now it comes to you as a token of hope. In this hour take the name that was foretold for you, Elessar, the Elfstone of the house of Elendil! ' From LOTR FOTR BOOK
For me, the reason that "movie" Aragorn stands out is that, while the films did a great job of making everything look like I'd imagined it in my head when I first read the books back in (year redacted...let's just say some of the actors hadn't been born yet), Viggo's Aragorn did something different.
I admit I wasn't sold on him at first because he didn't "look" like I imagined, but as the films went along, he embodied the characteristics of Aragorn better than I thought possible. Yeah, McKellan LOOKS like Gandalf, but Viggo IS Aragorn.
As his acceptance of/confidence in his destiny grows throughout the films, his body language changes. His speech changes. His physicality and demeanor follows his character arc. At first he's just this ranger, and by the end he walks and talks like a king. It is an amazing performance.
Agreed, but I would also say that McKellen IS Gandalf.
Viggo quickly read LotR while heading to New Zealand. And he saw how closely Tolkien used the Norse Saga`s and mythology as a foundation in his writing. He knows the saga`s very well, and he knew which saga Tolkien used in the many different sub-plots or character arcs. I am just like you. I read "The Hobbit" in 5th grade when I got it as a birthday or Christmas gift in 1977. I was hooked immediately. I saw an interview with him telling us how he slowly revealed Aragorn by changing his speech and his mannerisms to reveal Aragorns true nature and power as a leader of men. A King. Pretty cool. But in my mind I have an image of every character as I see them, and always will. But there are times when I see Ian McKellen instead of "Gandalf" as he looks to me. Tolkien describes Gandalf very clearly. More than any other character. " Sharp eyes black as coal" and long bushy eyebrows, a silver sweeping beard, broad shoulders and average height, a long sharp nose, etc. The interview is here on YT with Vitto telling how he "unmasked Aragorn" by going from a Ranger to a King and Dunedain.
@@gib59er56 what interview was it? I really want to know how he analyzed the character.
And what encapsulates the entirety of Tolkien's themes in my opinion? The below excerpt, narrated by the story's true hero no less:
"It’s like in the great stories Mr. Frodo.
The ones that really mattered.
Full of darkness and danger they were,
and sometimes you didn’t want to know the end.
Because how could the end be happy.
How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad happened.
But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow.
Even darkness must pass.
A new day will come.
And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.
Those were the stories that stayed with you.
That meant something.
Even if you were too small to understand why.
But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand.
I know now.
Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn’t.
Because they were holding on to something."
Frodo : "What are we holding on to, Sam?"
Sam : "That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for."
Yes, some of the essential themes were expressed by "simple" folk like Sam. Tolkein wanted to express the virtues of a simple life and the folly of the pursuit of power. It was the hour of the Shire folk, who would in a way be more powerful than the greatest of the wise.
@@theharper1 What a beautifully stated comment. Thank you!🙏
Aragorn is my fav character next to Samwise. I find they both are inspiring and admirable in their steadfast loyalty and both are very brave in their own way. We might not see as much struggle or development for Aragorn perhaps to become who he is compared to Samwise who really is thrown into a new to him dangerous world but reading the books and think about his circumstances he clearly had a lot of things to overcome and deal with. For me both are very strong people.
Sam is loyal asf!
Sam, Aragorn and Gandalf
I do like both versions, but there are a couple of scenes in the books that are missed out because of the choices Jackson made. When the 3 walkers encounter Eomer & the Eothain coming back from destroying the orcs, the moment when Aragorn shows Anduril & declares himself as the heir of Elendil is amazing, not least the reaction of Gimli & Legolas. I also regret that because Eomer was banished the chance for him & Aragorn to develop their friendship is also lost, as that is one of the great friendhips in the book. One other point is that I interpreted the anyone who draws Elendil's sword other than the heir of Elendil moment, not as an action that Aragorn will take but as a fate laid on the sword, so that only Elendil's heir can wield it.
Yes, only the heir could wield the sword. It was a doom on the blade, not a threat of violence from Aragorn.
The first time I read The Lord of the Rings was over 40 years ago. It took me a while (a couple of viewings) to warm up to the movie version of Aragorn. Strider, the novel character, always seemed approachable and throughout the books he was both Strider the Dunedain and Aragorn, king to be. Tolkien made him approachable from the moment he follows Frodo back to his room and Gandalf's letter is read. When he says he " But I must admit,' he added with a queer laugh, 'that I hoped you would take to me for my own sake. A hunted man sometimes wearies of distrust and longs for friendship.'...." At that moment, he was completely approachable. (Tolkien was such a genius) He was knowledgeable, strong, faithful, and noble and was more than ready to realize his destiny. I struggled to understand why they took that away from him. I also struggled with the whole "romance" that was thrown into the movie. In the book, his love was as connected to his destiny as was his becoming king. Your explanation of his development over the span of the movies though makes sense and I suppose there was no way to show the connection to Arwen except in a visual way so I came to accept that also. I only came to like the character because Viggo Mortenson was, as you say, perfect for the part.
Taking on the production of something so epic was a huge challenge and Peter Jackson did an admirable job. I don't think anyone could have done better.
I absolutely love Viggo Mortensen and he was a glorious Aragorn 🤍✨⚔🐴🏹🌳⛰🌊🌤🌕🤗💞 Aragorn IS one of the greatest complex inspiring HEROES in all of fiction IMO. 💯TOP 5 for me.
The sword is a symbol and proof of his position and destiny. Especially in the context of Tolkien’s world, it makes sense to guard it practically above anything else.
I'd have liked at least one scene of Aragorn together with Elrond's sons, who helped shape his life tremendously.
I felt like they had a brotherly relationship in the books. Would have been cool to see that on screen too.
Aragorn in the books is the personification of everything “Kingly” as you read him doing some grandiose feat.
Aragorn in the movies is an dunedain (offbranch of numenor) ranger that survived the exile of his people, which gave Aragorn animosity towards his bloodline until he reunited with Arwen.
He was always the heir to the throne and his issue was fear he’d succumb to the Ring like Isildur.
I wouldn't even say Dunedain, just a warrior. Because Dunedain are totally cut off in the movies and are hardly ever mentioned. An average person wouldn't be able to tell you that Aragorn is meant to be a human with actual super strength, to them he's just another human.
@@nhmooytis7058 The movies are masterpieces but they do Isildur some injustice. In the books, while he does secumb to the seduction of the ring, he spends his time being a fair ruler who practically gave some power away instead of being power hungry. He comes to realize that he is not powerful enough to truly bend the ring to his will. That it will eventually overcome him. Isildur resolves to give the ring to Elrond but is killed on the way to Rivendel. It's a tragic story of a man that tries to right his wrong but ultimately fails.
In the books isildur literally repented and was about to bring the ring to Rivendell and apologize as he recognized it was beyond him even for a great numenorean connected to the faithful line of the mighty Elendil ❤️❤️❤️❤️
@@Makkaru112 I think in the short time they had to establish the background of the Ring they did OK.
Aragorn is also my favorite character in all of fiction. Ever since I met Strider, when reading the chapter At the Sign of the Prancing Pony when I was a teenager, he has fascinated me.
I just love the relationship we see between him and Boromir that we see in the (extended) movies and how it changes Aragorns view on not just men, but the men of Gondor specifically. How this, essentially, prince of Gondor gave everything just to defend two Hobbits that he befriended, regaining the honor he lost trying to take the Ring from Frodo.
Having Aragorn wear Boromir's bracers afterwards as a tribute and a reminder (he even has them on in Arwens vision of him on his death bed) is a truly great touch.
I prefer the books Aragorn best. When the movies came out, I noticed the change in his character and didn’t like it. I can appreciate the ‘show, don’t tell’ like you mentioned in your video. But I argue that while Aragorn is not immortal he does live longer and is already pass death for most mortal men. He should me more relatable to elves and wizards than mortal men when it comes to the passing of time. Thus for him to be still undecided about his life in his late 80’s makes him younger in wisdom and more foolish in youth than someone who’s been through life already. So for a mortals lifespan he couldn’t decide what his fate was? He ran from his fate? And what about his love for Arwen? His journey of love took him decades to go from nothing to come to fruition. That’s incredible but to become King, I expect it to take a lifespan. The movie takes those decades and turns it into a year. Sometimes life takes a while. Patience and endurance are traits one needs and Aragorn in the books can teach us that.
So tell us how you'd write a protagonist Aragorn, rather than a secondary character Aragorn in the books? In the films he was promoted to a main character, and a protagonist requires a story arc that sees major changes occur in their personality. Book Aragorn had no such changes in his personality, because he wasn't a protagonist. Would you have kept him a secondary, supporting character, and reduced the time the films spent on him?
So few people understand the difference between the mediums of prose and film, or just the craft of making a narrative in general. It is one thing to venerate Tolkien for being a great writer--it's another entirely to understand how to make a narrative in the first place, and what parts make a great story.
@@rikk319 Some excellent points to bring up. I'll start with pointing out that in books 2 and 3 they are split up between 2 separate journeys. The first journey is about Frodo, Sam, and Sméagol/Gollum, while the second journey follows the 3 Hunters (Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas), Gandalf, Pippin, and Mary. Granted, Aragorn does share the spotlight with a lot more characters, but the story does follow him all the way through as a protagonist in the books.
Now in my opinion, a protagonist does not have to have a story arc that sees major changes in their personality. I believe what you’re referring to is known as a positive character arc, where basically the protagonist believes in some lie that the world tells them, and the protagonist must overcome that lie. Now when the protagonist overcomes that lie, yes, they do typically have a major change in their personality. But Aragorn isn't written as a positive arc. Aragorn is a protagonist with a flat arc. A flat arc is about a protagonist that doesn't believe in some lie of the world that they must overcome. Instead, the protagonist of a flat arc believes in a certain truth. For Aragorn that truth is that he must become the King of Gondor and reunite the kingdom. A protagonist of a flat arc never gives up to reform the world around them. It doesn't mean the protagonist can't have doubts about themself or the truth. The lie of the world for Aragorn is that Gondor needs no King, or that he isn't worthy to wield his ancestor’s sword Narsil. But a protagonist of a flat arc believes they can change the world without sacrificing their own beliefs. In the first book Aragorn believes the time has come for him to return as the King of Gondor. Aragorn believes these truths so much that shortly after we meet him in the first book, Aragorn has Narsil reforged into Anduril.
So, in my opinion, I disagree with you that Aragorn would no longer be a protagonist if the movies took away his movie arc. Just give Aragorn his book arc and he's still a protagonist. As in the book, have the movies show that Aragorn believes in the truth that he is the heir of Elendil, and worthy to be the new King of Gondor. Show Aragorn that he is in the final phase of that possibility which has taken him decades to see the fruits of his labors and how steadfastness in his beliefs has guided him through the trials and tribulations of it all. And like the books have the first movie show Aragorn is the one who decides to reforge Narsil into Anduril, not Elrond in the third movie. .
@@walraven0073 Well said!
Viggo Mortenson was not the original casting. Just imagine how lucky we are that the other guy dropped.
Yeah, Stuart Townsend was the actor originally cast as Aragorn.
I actually preferred Aragorn from the movies. In the books, he always sounded a bit too confident for my taste. In the movies, he's clearly afraid that he might make the mistakes as Isildur did, but he ultimately embraces his destiny once it becomes clear that he has to.
I have to agree with you my man’s
Confident to the point of even arrogant. I'm reading them right now and sometimes he even comes across like he doesn't take some things seriously.
@@TheMacC117 The scene I hate the most is when, during Elrond's council, he somewhat downplays the role Gondor has been playing in keeping the rest of Middle-Earth safe, and says that the Dunedain under him were the ones actually keeping the peace.
Gondor had to deal with the forces of Mordor, Harad and the Easterlings for years. The Dunedain had to deal with occasional orc and troll raids at most. Keep it in mind, as well, that it was the forces of Gondor that defeated Angmar, while Arnor fell apart.
I honestly feel the same way. The same goes with Eöwyn. When she went against the Witch King in the books, she was fearless and preached her name and linage. In the film, she was genuinely and understandably afraid but still stood her ground and did her best against an unnatural power. Just as true courage is knowing not when to take a life but when to spare one, true courage isn’t the absence fear but standing in the face of that fear.
@@teleportedbreadfor3days To be fair, several of the characters are more arrogant in the books.
Gandalf sometimes acts like he is the only that knows how everyone should act, and calls others fools for not acting the way he expected.
There was a lot of Aragorn that was cut for the limited time of the movies but they did they very important thing of getting across how nobel he really was and likable which is rare to find in movie characters these days. You know he'll be the best king as he's one you can rely on. Such great casting for those movies.
"Put aside the ranger. Become who you were born to be." One of my favourite lines from the PJ trilogy
Don't know if y'all remember but a commented on one of your posts about 3 years ago about my life falling apart and your videos helping me through a rough time. I got a lot of support on that comment and then life happened and I lost access to the account I posted it on. Just wanted to let you know I'm still here, doing better than I've ever done and I love your channel.
Aragorn is the quintessence of a heroic and lordly Man and Hero. He stands on principle forged in knowledge and wisdom from history, and adheres to the purpose he sees as his duty and privilege, regardless of personal cost. Truly an admirable character.
And Viggo Mortensen captured him marvelously - even though in general I find the movies wanting. They are too gratuitously violent while wantonly changing some important characters.
In short, both the book and movie versions are done very well and convey what needs to be conveyed--the man destined to be great versus the one who grows into greatness, and all without sacrificing the virtues and strengths of Aragorn.
Also, props to Viggo Mortensen who really buckled down and devoted himself to playing the character.
What I love is how well the two stories can coexist if you let them.
Building off what you said about book Aragorn being more of a mythic hero, the two give me a sense of story vs realism. The books feel like a mythical tale from a bygone era, whereas the movies keep that magic, yet (to me at least) come off far more believable. As if the books are the more romanticized written account of what happened (as Tolkien liked to claim with the whole Redbook idea) and the movies are more of what ACTUALLY happened. Or vice versa if you prefer.
I think we missed something. In the book, as they enter Fangorn, Gimily says that their pursuit might lead to them only being able to sit with the hobbits and starve. Aragon says then that may be all we can do.
It's remarkable that he seems willing to forsake the future of Middle Earth rather than let Merry and Pippin die alone in Fangorn.
That is the behavior of a king that men will follow and die for.
I think Book Aragorn works great in the books but Movie Aragorn works great for the film media.
Absolutely
Not Jeff here. I'm continually amazed that we are able to have discussions like this, because long ago, two little boys made it happen. The Hobbit was written as a story for children, so when it was shopped to Allen and Unwin, Mr. Unwin gave it to his 10 year old son Ranulf to critique. Ranulf liked it very much indeed, so The Hobbit was published. And the rest is literary history.
Many years later, Viggo was offered the part of Aragorn. He was both unfamiliar with the books and reluctant to commit to multiple years of filming. His young son, Henry, who is a great fan of science fiction and fantasy, verbally dopeslapped him into taking the part. Henry explained that Aragorn is THE hero. I wonder if he would have forgiven Viggo if Dad has turned down the part!
All hail to these unsung young heroes of Middle Earth!
As a general rule, if something doesn't make sense in the movie, that's where Peter Jackson deviated from the books.
So one example is how easily Sauron is killed in the intro. He's set up as this super powered badass, but all you have to do is cut off his finger? That's not how it went down in the book, where the greatest man king and the greatest elf king had to double-team Sauron to strike down his body, but were killed in the effort (Isildur then cuts the ring from the corpse).
Another one that bugs me is in the Council of Elrond, Boromir reacts to Aragorn by talking as if some "Aragorn" was known to be the Lost King of Gondor.
But in the book, neither Boromir nor any of his people would know any heir of Isildur exists 3,000 years later, and the name Aragorn would mean nothing to him. These were well-guarded secrets, and took some explaining in the council.
(In the full lore, Aragorn, who's older than he looks, had decades before gone to Gondor and proven himself a hero. But did so under an alias, and then disappeared like some mysterious cowboy saving the town and riding off into the sunset. Boromir would've been a kid or not even born yet.)
Expecting a film to have the time to explain every detail of a book is a Sisyphean task. They're two different artistic mediums, and just because they both tell narratives doesn't mean they tell them identically. It's the difference between them that makes it worth having the two different mediums to enjoy. Wishing a book and movie told identical stories is like wishing a painting and a song portrayed their subject identically. They're very different mediums.
I agree that while the movies were fantastic, some changes were unnecessary and bizarre. They came across as jarring to those who knew the books well. The part about Sauron being defeated by cutting off the ring was essential to having the ring itself as a character in the storyline and justifying it's corrupting power; if you desired power, possessing the ring would grant it.
@@rikk319 I don’t have a problem with small things. And I love the films for many reasons. But none of that pure and honest love will ever be given to Amazon’s rangs of gurlpowwah. ⭐️😂❤️
you make some good points, but imagine this. when one first chooses or accepts a path, there are stumbles, and doubts. it was possible to give us an Aragorn that had accepted his fate, yet was still in need of growth from that Ranger, to the King he needed to become. it would have been a bit more difficult to write, but you could reconcile both Aragorn's present between the two mediums, if their was say... a lore heavy game adaption as opposed to a button masher. (that will never happen, but it is an idea.)
That’s what makes Aragorn’s character development done well
First of all, I want to say this is another good video from you, and I do agree that the movie does the character justice in its own way.
I also would have expanded on some elements that you touched on, mostly on whether or not audiences from 2001 would have been interested in a more faithful version of the character from the book. As such, the movie version was molded into a very common trope of our time: The Reluctant Hero. There are probably a dozen reasons for this, but reluctant heroes have been very prevalent in mainstream media for quite some time. Maybe people feel like they need a reason to do the right thing because being heroic is not easy and requires effort, and having a reason helps feel like that effort is worth spending. Common reasons have to do with revenge or justice or rescuing someone from danger, and it takes a chunk of the story for those reasons to settle in on the hero before he or she is finally onboard. This is also pretty useful as it does help the character fit the well-known Hero's Journey mold, making writing and plotting quite convenient. Rarely we do we have heroes that are willing to step up from the beginning (with Captain America being a notable recent exception, at least that I can think of).
As a consequence, this makes movie Aragorn very much a product of his time, which happens quite often with adaptations. How many times have we seen modern adaptations of classic stories be reworked or re-envisioned by modern creators, often changing various elements to do so? Just as Tolkien was influenced by classic mythology, Peter Jackson and company were influenced by their own time period and circumstances: making a big budget movie for a mainstream audience at the beginning of the 21st century. That being said, as you mention, the movie writers took great care to show Aragorn's growth in the King and made sure that the movie version carried many of the elements from the books, even if the timing of those elements was different. They didn't just turn him into a stereotypical reluctant hero and call it a day.
And I think that's why, despite knowing and recognizing the many differences between the books and the movies for Lord of the Rings, I'm not bothered by them, because the movie writers knew that adapting things from a book to a movie isn't a simple or straight-forward process. Instead of fixating on the details, they focused on the themes and why each character or element was important, and sought to find ways to bring those themes across in an audio-visual medium. The best adaptations are not ones that get every detail right, but understand the important pieces and rebuild the story with those pieces as the core. And when it comes to the Lord of the Rings movies, they're probably the best adaptation we could have gotten at the time.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being able to decide which version is better, because each version is designed for a different purpose, making it more of an apples-to-oranges scenario. I know that the internet likes to have its "winners" and "losers," but I don't think there needs to be any kind of reconciliation between the two presentations of Aragorn, and that one can appreciate both, as you have done.
Well done..i can t agree more
Frankly I can't really decide which version i enjoy more either. But man I love the scene in the films when Elrond gives Aragorn Anduril so much. It gives me such great goosebumps, and man I wish Tolkien did that in the books too, haha! Excellent video, Yoystan! :)
i feel like a thing that Nostalgia Critic said is kind of true (when he compared Ralph Bahkshi vs Peter Jackson)
the book (which Bahkshi based his characters on more 'directly) has Aragorn as a man who wants to be king and is good as a king (simplifying it because it's more then this) where as the Movie is more of a man who almost doesn't want it (playing into the 'bane of isildur). Regardless of the character, Aragorn is an amazing character, wether book or movie
Plus, John Hurt played Aragorn in the Bakshi version. Personally although Viggo was good, John Hurt really nailed the character. Honestly, I think he was the best portrayal.
"There is always hope."
One of the few changes that I actually prefer.
First off........Viggo......that should b argument enough but I'll cont. 🤣
Aragorn in the films was more relatable to viewers; we see him grow and develop into something completely different then wen we first met him. That gives hope to us who watch. That we can change and become better than wen we started out. He is the every man.
Either way, long live the king 👑
Interesting - I always took the threat about drawing his sword was that there was a power in the Sword which would slay anyone other than the Heir that drew the sword :)
One of the problems with the movie Aragorn, is the character they force on Elrond - condemning him to being an antagonist in the Aragorn/Arwen relationship.
He only did what a good dad was supposed to do, which was; guide his daughter before she throws her life away instead of living a life of eternity for temporary love.
The films didn't have the time to get into the difference of eternities after death between elves and humans. Arwen didn't suddenly become mortal in the books--in the end she willingly gave up her life after Aragorn died of natural causes. Tolkien noted the importance was that elves and humans go to different places (their "dooms") after death. Arwen wanted to spend her eternity with Aragorn after death...but this also meant that she'd never get to see her parents after death, as elves and humans go to different "heavens".
A few ideas for videos I would love watch..
1) what did The wizards do during the 1st age as the Maiar?
2) what happens to the balrogs after they die?
3) which of the maiar & valar travelled to middle earth
4) everything fatty Bolger did during the LOTR.
5) which location, buildings & settlements are the oldest in middle earth.
Hey man just wanna say love your vids and keep up the great work.
Thanks buddy, I appreciate it! Keep up the good work at Taco Bell 😉
When first watching the movie, after having read the books in two languages, I found the movie Aragorn too thin and weak, too uncertain, but after watching countless times, I came to accept and enjoy Vigos awesome display.
While I like both versions, and Aragorn is too one of my favorite characters, I find the book version to be far more to my liking in most ways.
Book!Aragorn is definitely more nuanced than people give credit for, I feel. There's no doubt he wants to become king, but he also has a major crisis of doubt after Gandalf falls. His heart desires to go to Gondor to pursue his claim, but he also has a duty to guide the Ringbearer. This throws him into major indecision that nearly derails the entire mission.
We see his indecision's effects clearly through multiple passages on the voyage from Lorien. There's the note Tolkien makes about Aragorn's mind being "eased" by the gift of boats from Celeborn (which allows him to put off making a choice of path for many days). Later, we also see Aragorn's sudden (and rather uncharacteristic) panic when the Fellowship tries to find Frodo at the Falls of Rauros ("We shall all be scattered and lost!" groaned Aragorn, and then, "Alas! An ill fate is on me this day, and all that I do goes amiss.") He is so panicked he doesn't even stop to think like Samwise does, and leaves no one with the boats at all. This is *not* a moment that showcases his leadership skills; it's the low point in Aragorn's story.
After Frodo makes the decision to leave the Fellowship permanently, it frees Aragorn to choose his own path. I like to think he may have even take some inspiration from Frodo's choice to "do the harder thing", because after the breaking of the Fellowship, Aragorn starts making more bold and decisive choices; choosing to use the Palantir, take the Paths of the Dead, etc. He's learns something post-Fellowship that I don't think the movie captures.
A more faithful adaptation would've played this arc up instead of making Aragorn seem like a green rookie throughout (I still cringe a little in the Two Towers movie when he runs into a group of women and children and screams ORCS WE'RE UNDER ATTACK with no other instructions lol). I enjoy the movies and love Viggo Mortensen in the role, but I'd love to see a more nuanced take that's more similar to the book one day.
I agree - the movie version doesn’t behave like someone who served King Thengel, and Steward Ecthelion II as Thorongil. He seemed like someone who was in fact riding his first rodeo. The book one didn’t, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have doubts. And the major crisis of confidence he had was exactly the one you describe.
The movies let down Tolkien's story. As time goes on, IMO, the true reason Jackson adapted LOTR was to make it a vehicle for his VFX company Weta Digital.
I think a lot of people read the books with the Aragorn from the movies in mind and don't fully understand the character Tolkien wrote. Furthermore, many people including youtubers, have been over the years canonizing the movies in their minds. Perhaps without intent or realization. I love the movies, but the books are just bounds and leaps better than that, and unlike many others who think the PJ films are perfect, I do wish that a show is made that is faithful to the books (Tolkien).
The more I contemplate the movie treatment of aragorn the more I always am thankful for the fact that it was not in fact played by Stuart Townsend. For how the movie altered him, there was no other choice but mortensen.
This is a topic I've actually thought a lot about as well, since Aragorn's character was so different in the movie than how he was in the book. Yet, I agree that I like both portrayals, though I like the movie version a little more. The movie version seems more relatable and humble, and therefore more likeable, to me than the book's portrayal. And that's saying a lot for me since I tend to be more of a canonical purist when it comes to adaptations.
On a less serious note, one of the differences that both me and my friends had a bit of a laugh about was how often book Aragorn souts 'Elendil!' To a point where its become a bit of an inside joke among us.
Great video as always. Cant wait to watch more :)
“Why Tolkien Can’t Be Counterfeited” video touches on this at one point but shows true significance of it and why the orca and other fell fans fowl beings become afraid as they know full well the might if the Faithful Númenoreans ! Frightened the worst of Saurons mightiest ghouls and orcs ran away even with embodied Sauron at the helm. The very presence of them scared them shiteless. Even Sauron as Annatar couldn’t see him winning at all let alone surviving so he pretended to surrender! Rad cool hey? Haha
I remember in the book him lamenting about how all his decisions went ill. Especially when Gandalf was lost. He was more of a mythological character but also unsure of himself which made him approachable. The movies showed this also.
4:45 I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way, Aragorn is my favourite Lord of the Rings character in both the books and the movies, the movies really go to show how changes can still be made that impact the larger character development of a character without being a misinterpretation of the character from the books.
Wonderful analysis as usual, chaps. It's fascinating how the changes to Aragorn worked so well because we were taken along the journey for Aragorn's ascension The films would have been much less loved and remembered if the total sum of changes brought to Aragorn in the films that made him too far removed from the books and one you couldn't become invested in.
I think Viggo Mortensen could have played Aragorn exactly as he was in the books and he would have been like a figure of mythology coming to life. It certainly would have been glorious to behold. However, because Viggo was cast for an altered version of that character to be played be a different actor (Stuart Townsend), all of those doubts, uncertainties and his arc of choosing to become King of Gondor had a strength and gravitas conveyed through an actor who hewed closer to the mythical book character in appearance and presence.
I'm just rer-reading lort and also Boromir had some character adaptations to consider.
Firstly, thank you for adding accurate depictions of Aragorn by some artists, showing his lack of facial hair. I believe this detail should have been noted, even if you were focusing on character traits in his personage. While some might look at this as a small detail that has little meaning, Tolkien took great pains to make note of it and as such it should not be dismissed. The more-than-just-a-man writing of the character of Aragorn by Tolkien was intentional for readers. Tolkien described in some ways the very best of what we could be and the very best of the children of Ilúvatar through Aragorn's heritage and purpose. He was indeed set apart through this lineage, not only being noble of birth, but of a people unique in both physical and mental prowess, yet displaying the humility and fortitude of many of his forebearers, along with a love for peoples not lesser, but rather unique and deserving of respect. And, at last, reuniting the 1st and 2nd born of Eru, his union brought balance to the kindreds and a deeper connection to a line that transcended the bounds of Arda.
When hes in Edoras talking to the guards he's not saying he will fight them if they draw the sword but that it would literally curse them to draw it. They would simply die or be cursed by a spell.
Speaking as someone who hasn't read the books. I like how the movie Aragorn gave Arwen more agency. The scenes with her and her father sound better with his quest not BEING about doing what is necessary to be with her, it puts the agency on her to push her father to push him to his ultimate goal, which felt great.
Personally I like the book version so much better. Maybe it the “mythological” type that appeals to me. There is so much more depth to the character(s) to me in the book. It’s the unseen things that can’t be portrayed on film but can be inspired in our imaginations with words. I think of when Aragorn meets Eomer the first time and the aura that he portrays (and other characters too, Denethor, Faremir, Imrahil, etc) there is that hidden power within that brings so much more depth. It’s the same thing, but to a greater degree,that we see when Aragorn encounters Frodo at the end of The Fellowship (film) or in Sam when he tells Frodo, “I can’t carry it for you but I can carry you.” It’s the deep depth of character in the characters. I love it and it’s what I missed in the movies. Great video. It was a pleasure to watch. 🍻
I think movie Aragorn not desiring the kingship from the start really hits on a good theme that the best leaders are the ones who don't solely desire power or seek it out for their own selfish purposes. He is a great example of servant leader in the movies who is there to aid any who need help. I think this fits the religious theme also that "those who who make themselves last will become first." Another thing I like about movie Aragorn is he portrays a positive model of masculinity that need not only to be strong and brawny but fights and kills reluctantly when duty calls and can take moments to mourn over the lost (that Boromir scene) as well.
Book vs movie Aragorn is always an interesting debate, but i will make just 2 points here.
1. When you compare the 2. Movie Aragorn is much more of a man, someone anyone can identify with. He is meant to be part of our link into the world, he struggles with himself and his decisions. Much like how Frodo is so much weaker in the movies vs the books.
While Book Aragorn is a man who knows what is expected of him and his fate. He knows truly what should happen, should he fail. You can see this in his statement about his sword in the book, "Where this any other blade, i would do as he asked." The sword was a sign of his doom of his fate a burden alone he must bare, like the burden Frodo alone must bare.
2. This leads into my second point. Of the statement of any who drew it but the heir would die. Is similar to Thor's hammer, or the sword in the stone in other myths. OR even the ring itself. I forget who said it, though it could have been Sam, "It is perilous to mess in the affairs of wizards." And so to it would be perilous to mess with the sword. It was a sign of things to come, and to mess with that fate was to chance fate being brought down on you. Only those destine to use it could, and to any other it could mean there swift death. We could also say this is similar to the Silmarils.
It is also likely that like the Arkenstone, with Thorin, to Aragorn the sword was a treasure beyond all the riches he knew.
But that is my view on the matter.
I personally prefer the book version, although the movie version is still very respectable. Wholeheartedly agree on Viggo Mortensen being an excellent cast for the role, especially considering all of the behind-the-scenes stuff that showed how thoroughly he gave his all to the role.
I _do_ feel like it's a bit silly that his more delayed acceptance of his destiny meant Elrond casually made a months-long journey by himself to deliver Anduril, compared to his sons and the Rangers joining Aragorn for the coming battles and Anduril being reforged before the Fellowship ever left Rivendell, but it's hardly the most egregious change the films made.
I love the scene where Eowyn gives Aragorn food that she made and he doesn’t tell her that it’s really bad 😅 he’s kind at heart and humble in the movies ❤
I grew up not knowing the books. I knew the movies were based on books, but I had not read them. I should have, considering I read other fantasy novels and found myself reading four-five hundred page books in the span of just a few nights before bed. However I simply was not aware of the books before the movies came along. So I decided to watch the movies first.
I got to go into the cinema not knowing a THING about the lore. I had no idea about the premise, no idea about the task at hand. None of the characters were familiar to me. As such I was devastated when Gandalf "died". Such a kindly character that perished really hit me hard. But just as much as the pain of his death hurt me, the reveal of his return overjoyed me.
Aragorn was, to me, portrayed as the way a man should behave. A good role model. A brave man that seeks to do good with what he has and accepts responsibilities he might not originally have wanted. I could imagine Aragorn preferring a calm life with his love Arwen. Even just the two of them alone if need be. It would have been easily just as, if not more, comfortable than that of a King. Yet he took the role and improved the world upon doing such.
I think he is a great character in both representations. Aspects of both that men should aspire to embody to at least some extent.
Thank you for a fascinating analysis. Both Aragorns are wonderful and, although the movie version is more human and less epic, that makes him more relatable. I like your description of him as more of a protagonist. His film character also does a great job showing the psychological burden he's had to bear. Aragorn was raised in the household of Elrond, who has a clear contempt for men, including their kings, after witnessing Isildur's weakness with the ring. Movie Aragorn has clearly internalised much of that harsh judgement. It's great watching his conviction grow throughout the trilogy.
I enjoyed your review and largely agree with the suppositions and conclusions. I actually wish you would have discussed the beheading of The Mouth of Sauron more as this action is so contradictory to Aragorn’s staunch adherence to code and morality. One does not behead a messenger or ambassador on the battlefield, and he above all would adhere to this obligation. Beheading him did nothing to change the fact that the armies of Mordor would pour out and take on this outnumbered group of free men. Therefore, I simply cannot see Aragorn taking this action.
I absolutely agree with you. While the movie version may have changed him somewhat, the core of the character remained the same. You still have one of the most noble and badass characters in fiction. And Vigo absolutely nailed the character even with Peter Jackson's changes in the movies. There are some characters where you can complain about the book to movie adaptation, but I don't think that Aragorn is one of them.
That would be a very interesting theory. If the Ring wasn't discovered during Aragorn's time, how would he re-unite the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor while striving against the Threat of Sauron? Also I think the sword of Narsil wasn't really pointed out that many times in the book, unless Aragorn was directly pointing it out and what it represented. I really do like in the movie version making Aragorn much more of a torn man, who wants to use his birthright as a tool to make the world a better place, but at the same time is ashamed of what his ancestor did and fears he'll follow the same path and so forth to make Anduril a much more important relic and it really helps builds Aragorns character arc from Ranger to King and makes it a much more pivotal moment in RotK.
This got me feeling all emotional about Aragorn like I actually want to meet him
One of my biggest gripes about the depiction of Aragorn is his physical characterization. Tolkien clearly stated in one his letters that all human descendants of Luthien Tinuviel were beardless, just like the Elves, and connects Aragorn even further to his elvish ancestry (at least partially, and somewhat diluted over time...nevertheless....).
As far as a preference for the movie version versus book version, I always prefer the "original" version, hence I prefer the book, although as pointed out in the video, both versions have a lot of good things going for them. Aragorn has always been one of my favorite characters, if not my favorite, because he encapsulates so much of the history of the Edain and the Elves of the First Age, the love of Luthien and Beren, and through their granddaughter ELwing and her marriage to Earendiul, the lineage of all the great kings of the Three Houses of Men that encountered the Elves. Men of the West does a great job of pointing out part of this complex history in the video on the history of the Elvish Royal Family...in which, towards the end, the video shows how the marriage of Arwen and Aragorn, fraught with so much history, brings together the sundered lines of Elros and Elrond...and leads the way into the Fourth Age.
I first read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy before the animated attempts. More than once. The Aragorn in the books wasn't as relatable to my '60's/70's self as the Aragorn of the movies. I lay that down solely to the period in which the books were written. That should not be taken as criticism, it's not. Just an observation. Both are good.
Biggest reason why I havnt read the books. Aragorn's growth in the films are my favorite moments from the film
Happy Sunday 😀
Man, the Movies and Book Aragorn are so interesting Characters in their own way I will ask my family whom they Prefer!!!
I find it funny I talked about your Faramir Video to my Family right before my mum met Book!Faramir, soon she will be on the OathBreakers, and I wanna know who is my Family's opinion is...I will Comment it to my Comment!!!
Thanks, Mellon for telling how Aragorn has Changed from Book to Movie, Until Galadriel and Celeborn's Love Story...Marion Baggins Out!!!!
Aragorn was just a stud, hands down best character.
Woot, new video, 1 min after post 🤣🥰
I think both versions did him justice! Though I can’t help but wonder what the movies would be like if the actors for Aragorn and Boromir swapped roles
If they'd swapped actors Aragorn would've died.
Sean Bean has a way of making that happen.
@@neuralmute “Whether by the sword or the slow decay of time, Aragorn will die.” (Shows a dramatic hypothetical battle moment of Sean Bean Aragorn dying.) They would’ve used a premonition as their chance to get Sean Bean his death scene 😂
@@jefffinkbonner9551 Clever in canon work around!
I'm honestly surprised that *anyone* (who hadn't read the books) was surprised when Ned Stark was beheaded in S1 of Game of Thrones. Tell me that wasn't written all over the wall.
It struck me that Aragorn was warning the gatekeepers, I could be wrong, but I recall the sheath of Narsil had an elvish magic to it that warned against anyone but Aragorn drawing the blade. A kind of curse, not that Aragorn would kill whomever himself.
You can say whatever about movie Aragorn but you can't say Viggo Mortensen didn't put his heart and soul into the role. The man was insisted on doing all his own stunts and put his body on the line. Everyone knows about the broken toe. But in FotR when Lurtz throw's Aragorn's knife back at him and Aragorn deflects it that was real. Wrong timing and he gets a knife in the face. Then in TT when he was floating in the river he almost drown. He never went anywhere without his sword and would practice relentlessly. True dedication to the role
I am the typical book stickler, and I can tell you that in my own opinion the way Aragorn develops in the movies is significantly more engaging than in the books in so far as we get to go on this journey of self-realization with him. It also helps that as you stated and I fully agree: Aragorn, in my mind IS Viggo.
I feel the same way, both Aragorn are good.
Book Aragorn has a longer quest and years of travel and lots of interactions.
movie we don't get back story, but character development and journey are still there.
they are so well written that either way is a good character.
Thank you for this beautiful video. Keep up the good work 👌
The integrity of the vision of his story is what makes him work in the movies. They set up his story and character from the very beginning.
Vigo is king!!!! FOREVER!!!! (sealed with a headbutt)
I like the book version more. If only he had that Kingly feel underneath the ranger in the first movie I would like both equally. I remember the council of Elrond where he publicly shy's away from his title and in the extra scenes where he openly voices his distrust of Gondor's strength/integrity to Boromir regarding the ring.
I hope you you do videos like this on all the main characters. I haven't read the books in a long time, I remember my dad reading me and my brother the books leading up to the movies coming out
Nice description I always felt both versions were different cause I read the books a long time ago after seeing the films, but your description made me remember that to me they’re similar yet different. Also congratulations on getting the spear of Eomer and maybe a future video you could give an inspection of the spear?
I've seen a lot of people online categorizing fictional characters as either the soldier, poet, or king. Aragorn is one of those rare characters in fiction who is all three.
The problem though is forcing certain literature into the copy and paste Hollywood idea of what a movie "should be" so characters like Aragorn will always need to be changed to fit into that mould.
Good to see this finally, as it does frustrate me when one of the critisms of the dreadful RoP is that they change characters or they're too short or wrong hair. But PJ did fundamentally change Aragorns character in LoTR (or perhaps one could look at it that we saw him at an earlier stage of his development towards being king).
I for one never cared for Aragorns arogance in the books (probably because I disagree with inherited titles), whilst in the films we see him actually earn the right to lead the people of middle earth.
Regardless of my opinion. what Jackson did was prove you could change characters, styles, who said what, leave out whole chunks, even story ines and yet still have some of the finest films ever made that pleased most people most of the time.
All I know is Aragon is it healing and understanding King. All hail Lord elessar
Honestly, i feel like the movies got MANY things better than the books - but of course, the PURPOSE of the book was different. It was to be a long epic tale that is read and enjoyed slowly, while on the other hand, a film NEEDS more tension, a more dynamic pace. It is very strictly time-limited, so it has to do more in the time it has... and i feel the LOTR movies did just that very well!
Sorry Boromir's my dude lol
The sense I have from book Aragorn is that while he works toward restoring the union of the two kingdoms (which includes even bringing one back into existence, basically), it is not something he would ever force. It's the kind of thing that will happen when its time has come. What you do in the meantime is attend to what you can in support of that eventuality and whatever good you can in general. It's very Gandalf-ish of him, really, though Gandalf is known to give more of a push to things when he deems it necessary. 😆
If I end up with another son, I’m naming him Aragorn
In the appendices it mentions he's known by many names in many lands and is aware of myriad cultures and languages.
But in the movie you have to pay attention to how he speaks. He has a vaguely Cornish accent around the Hobbits in Bree, his Elvish accent colours his words in Rivendell, and he adopts a bit of the local accent in Rohan and Gondor. It's subtle but "book accurate".
In the book Aragorn did have doubts early on in his life:
"‘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 it may come to pass is hidden from me."
I thought it was great to see him overcoming those doubts during the events of the movie, instead of already being the confident mythological hero.
According to Tolkien, as a result of their Numenorean heritage neither Aragorn nor Boromir had facial hair.
At this point, Men of the West is gonna start laughing at Martin's Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo by the end of the series XD
Personally, it felt to me a bit odd how Aragorn's main driving motive was so different (and also that Arwen was dying because of the Ring). I might prefer Aragorn as an overarching mythical figure while we focus primarily on the Hobbits, considering that even when the Hobbits are not around, we typically receive the viewpoint narrative from Gimli (which makes sense, because Dúrin's Folk were invented to be characters in a children's book). Frankly, if anything, I wish we had gotten more Gimli stuff to elevate Aragorn in his eyes if we wanted to flesh out Aragorn more. Alternatively, I think I would prefer if Peter Jackson had just fleshed out Aragorn's motives, as contained in the Appendices, earlier in the movie without so greatly changing them.
Either way, my least favorite part is the spontaneous murder of the Mouth of Sauron.
Suggestions of people I would like to see done next: Frodo, Merry & Pippin, Théoden, Denethor, Treebeard, Bombur, Thranduil, and Thorin.
I love both versions of the character. I would say that I connected with the movie version of Aragorn more, as he's presented as someone who is caught between two different cultures, and who is even critical of his "home" culture, that of Men. That struggle to figure out where you belong really clicked for me as a TCK (Third Culture Kid), specifically an American who grew up overseas. In the books, Aragorn seems fairly confident in who he is and in the dual cultural legacies he is a part of. In the movies, he seems to have more doubts that he ultimately has to overcome, which really resonated with me.
On a unrelated topic I wish the game developers of " for honor" would make a LOTR dlc characters like Lutz, gimli etc...
The books are from the perspective of the Hobbits and don't give much inside into the non-Hobbit characters' thoughts an development. In a movie of such complex storylines however it makes a lot of sense to create more points of identification and show more character development. And while the Hobbits still frame everything, the movies do a great job in showing complex development inside many other characters. Maybe a little misguided in Faramir, but perfectly reasonable in Aragorn. It's till so out of my comprehension how creating this adaptation was even possible. How undeserving we are of those masterpieces.
nice one, subtletly shiting on rop ;)