I know I'm the exception, especially among fellow conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians, but I didn't really like the LOTR film trilogy all that much. At best, I liked Fellowship of the Ring well enough, and I thought there were some standout scenes in each of the movies, but overall the movies as a whole as a single story were less than their parts. And indeed one of the many reasons I think this way is because I didn't like how Aragorn was portrayed by Viggo.
In general, though, I liked the books more than the movies. But I still didn't like the books as much as most people (especially fellow Christians) liked the books. In other words I think they're good stories, but not great stories. I suppose I sit somewhere between W.H. Auden's "At the End of the Quest, Victory" review as well as C.S. Lewis's <a href="https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/11/24/c-s-lewis-roundup/">raving reviews</a> (e.g. "The gods return to earth: J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The dethronement of power: J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers") and Edmund Wilson's "Oo, Those Awful Orcs!" review.
Also, I think something else greatly separating Jackson from ROP is sentiment and intent. True, Jackson greatly misunderstands authority, hierarchy, and sovereignty, and seeks to make Strider "relatable." But he doesn't do it from a position of hate. Though he misunderstands, he still is fond of the source material. I believe he was a fish swimming in the waters of liberalism, all but oblivious to his post-modern assumptions. I don't judge too harshly, because I've only come to grips with my own internalized liberal assumptions since 2020 or so (thank you covid regime).
In stark contrast, ROP was a direct assault on truth and goodness. They are nothing more than orcs gloating inside the shattered spires of Osgiliath, declaring they are so much stronger and smarter than the beauty they stole and destroyed.
I'm all for holding the banner of Story high, but if the stuff that's come out in the last five years would have met Jackson's LOTR halfway the world would be a better place for it.
Seriously though, I had to dig into the books again to remember why I didn't like aragorn in the movies when I first saw them. The inferiority complex is completely contrived.
Oh you must have been thinking of Eragon which does indeed have a boy and a dragon egg… the author took a lot of inspiration from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars imo.
I would let him read them yes. There’s a few references in them that would maybe warrant a talk, such as:
In one of the later books, the main character’s brother gets his fiance pregnant before he marries her (it’s not explicit)
The main character treats an elf girl’s wounds and has to take her clothes off; he notices how pretty she is (again not explicit, he just thinks she’s, you know, pleasing to the eyes) - Christopher Paolini started writing these when he was 15…
In book two, there’s a scene where the main character wanders into an elvish ‘spring’ festival where ‘love is in the air’ so to speak (between the animals, not elves just to be clear), and because he’s a human, he isn’t immune and goes and makes a crazy proposal to the elf girl previously mentioned (this part isn’t actually too concerning now that I think about it).
Also in book two, there’s a scene where (I don’t remember why) Eragon’s mentor, an elf, is probably bathing or something and Eragon makes an observation that he has no hair anywhere, even on his groin.
There may be a few others, but this series has nothing explicit and a thirteen-year-old is probably not going to notice or skim over them (I didn’t notice until my second or third reread).
So yes, they are good (albeit based pretty heavily off LotR and Star Wars), and a thirteen-year-old boy would definitely enjoy them. But maybe a discussion of certain points (if he notices?) would be warranted.
Wow. I've always really like Movie Aragorn, but your article really made me think about stuff i never noticed before. I did read all the (main) books before I watched the movies, and did notice the differences, but i honestly like movie Aragorn better. I felt that he had more character development and depth. However, i do know that Tolkien wrote the book Aragorn the way he did because Aragorn was not meant to be the main point in the story, but rather a means. The hobbits, and the destruction of evil were the main points. And like Gandalf says, that its the ordinary everyday things that save the day. Aragorn was meant to be more of a background character in the books. (in fact for most of the writing process, Strider was a hobbit like creature, and very different from the Aragorn we know) Tolkein also had rather a disinterested biew of kings it seems. In the book, Aragorn can sometimes come off as arrogant to me. However, i may need to read the books again. 😁
I concur. The film Aragorn is a much more compelling character than in the books. His humanity is what makes him real vs. the stiff portrayed in the books. His doubt is what distinguishes him from others whose ambitions exceed their talents. Viggo Mortensen, along with Ian McKellen as Gandalf, suited his character the best of all the leads. The portrayal of Frodo as a bumbling, insecure mess is farther from the books than Aragorn, in my view.
This is basically what I think, but just recently I read LotR to a kid for the first time which required me to actually read every word. I then noticed that Aragorn actually does show more indecision and lack of confidence than I ever noticed before. It’s just a lot more interesting than the cliched “but I don’t wanna be king” that Jackson gives us.
Basically, he’s ready to head to Gondor with Boromir, claim his throne, and show some Orcs what’s what. But when Gandalf apparently dies and leaves him in charge, he’s faced with losing that chance and instead ending up leading incompetent hobbits on a quest that almost certainly will lead to a horrible and nameless death. He’s so indecisive that he has them boat down the river as long as he can so they don’t have to choose a bank. He’s obviously far too mature to whine about it but the dilemma is there.
Well considering Gandalf's plan after a certain point can be summed up as "Eru take the wheel," I don't really blame him.
He's also concerned about the Ring and the evil it wrought on his direct ancestor, which in my opinion leads him to be very careful what decisions he makes around it. When Frodo and Sam depart the Fellowship, Aragorn basically says that the Ring and its Bearer had been his foremost concern, and with that immediate responsibility gone he feels more free to make decisions.
Some men cannot truly embrace the greatness of another. I look at Peter Jackson, a visionary and competent director, but I do not see the ability to see pure goodness and competence. Everything has to have a weakness for them and none can be a pure archetype of excellence. It’s a shame. However, you helped me understand why I never cared for the movies as this titular character is so weakened.
Well said. I'll raise you one and risk the ire of all present.
Are Gandalf and Aragorn actually the same character in the books?
Not in terms of stated attributes or background, but in terms of function. Both have no arc, which I love. Both guide the Hobbits and other folk. Both have what we might term a servant-leader destiny. Both are veiled but kingly.
Now of course, the plot affords them accidental attributes that differentiate them. Aragorn is betrothed to Arwen. Gandalf defeats the Balrog. Each can conveniently be in a place where the other isn't. But none of these plot attributes is essential to the core plotline (Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor).
Of course, this is all Friday night speculation. I wouldn't want to read that version. But I can't help but notice how much these two duplicate their function in terms of the core plotline.
Something interesting I notice from the books: Gandalf does very little that is “heroic” on-camera. There’s drama around the Balrog and its aftermath, but it all happens in retrospect. He takes the lead with Faramir, but the core heroism is around Pippin & Beregond
Gandalf is either Gandalf Stormcrow, announcing that the time of heroism is at hand, or acts off scene to consolidate the victory with his arrival
Agree on all points, but I think a close second is Gimli. Book Gimli is a deadly orc-killing machine ("never did I see an axe so wielded", according to Aragorn), a prickly but honorable warrior-poet whose bearing and modesty convince Galadriel to advocate for him before numerous high-ranking Elves, a proper noble but with a grim sense of humor and an appreciation for the smaller things in life. He even admits his own failings, most notably when he confesses that the only reason he was able to complete the ride from the Stone of Erech was Aragorn's leadership.
Movie Gimli is a petty blowhard who is the butt of most of the jokes in the series.
The defining moments for me for book!Gimli are, in no particular order:
1. Insulting Eomer to his face in front of all his knights, because the Rohirric noble insulted Galadriel.
2. Asking Galadriel for his gift, and explaining why he wants it.
3. Greeting Legolas after Helm's Deep, where he cheerfully announces his orc tally but is more concerned about his axe being chipped, and immediately inquires how Legolas is doing.
4. His banter with Merry and Pippin outside of the wreck of Isengard.
5. The bit in the Two Towers when Gandalf relays Galadriel's messages to Aragorn and Legolas, and Gimli is disappointed when he thinks she didn't send him any word. A confused Legolas inquires why he's so eager to receive dark news, and wonders if he'd rather get a prediction of his death, to which Gimli replies "Yes, if she had naught else to say."
This was an interesting contrast I hadn’t noticed - made me realize that I had never read/watched them near enough to consider comparing them. I’ll have to take a more critical viewing next time (rather than just chasing a nostalgic feeling)
I like movie Aragorn, but only because I think he's very handsome. *swoon* If he was played by someone else I could be a lot more objectively critical.
There is one more thing that Jackson did, that I consider worse than any of these, a complete betrayal of his character: In the extended editions, he depicts the parlay with the Mouth of Sauron before the gates of Mordor. He has Aragorn **betray his word** and slay his foe. This is sheer nihilism, something Aragorn would never do- the fact that he, Aragorn, requested the parlay, then viciously violated it shows that he really had no understanding of Tolkien, or the deep nobility of Aragorn.
He also fails to depict Aragorn taking the Paths of the Dead as something he freely and bravely chooses as necessary so as to meet and fulfill his destiny: in this he is most clearly a type of Christ, who as the Apostles Creed states descended into hell, to harrow it and free the dead.. The Apostles and disciples, like Aragorn’s companions in the book, did not understand what he was doing, and tried to dissuade him, but both Aragorn and Christ knew they had a prophetic destiny that they had to fulfill.
Jackson really hasn’t a deep clue about Tolkien in other words, and really did maim the story to make a mere post modern romance and action movie.
I know I'm the exception, especially among fellow conservative evangelical and Reformed Christians, but I didn't really like the LOTR film trilogy all that much. At best, I liked Fellowship of the Ring well enough, and I thought there were some standout scenes in each of the movies, but overall the movies as a whole as a single story were less than their parts. And indeed one of the many reasons I think this way is because I didn't like how Aragorn was portrayed by Viggo.
In general, though, I liked the books more than the movies. But I still didn't like the books as much as most people (especially fellow Christians) liked the books. In other words I think they're good stories, but not great stories. I suppose I sit somewhere between W.H. Auden's "At the End of the Quest, Victory" review as well as C.S. Lewis's <a href="https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/11/24/c-s-lewis-roundup/">raving reviews</a> (e.g. "The gods return to earth: J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The dethronement of power: J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers") and Edmund Wilson's "Oo, Those Awful Orcs!" review.
Magic the Gathering tried giving us an Aragorn for mOdErN aUdIeNcEs. https://media.mtgsalvation.com/avatars/296/767/638229498519596737.png
May the Lord award them according to their works.
Also a travesty. But at least the LOTR movies, mediocre as they were, saves us from worse, as the Magic adaptation proves.
Also, I think something else greatly separating Jackson from ROP is sentiment and intent. True, Jackson greatly misunderstands authority, hierarchy, and sovereignty, and seeks to make Strider "relatable." But he doesn't do it from a position of hate. Though he misunderstands, he still is fond of the source material. I believe he was a fish swimming in the waters of liberalism, all but oblivious to his post-modern assumptions. I don't judge too harshly, because I've only come to grips with my own internalized liberal assumptions since 2020 or so (thank you covid regime).
In stark contrast, ROP was a direct assault on truth and goodness. They are nothing more than orcs gloating inside the shattered spires of Osgiliath, declaring they are so much stronger and smarter than the beauty they stole and destroyed.
Lmao it's so grotesque
I'm all for holding the banner of Story high, but if the stuff that's come out in the last five years would have met Jackson's LOTR halfway the world would be a better place for it.
Seriously though, I had to dig into the books again to remember why I didn't like aragorn in the movies when I first saw them. The inferiority complex is completely contrived.
I was so relieved to see the subtitle. I will defend book Aragorn to the death.
Is that the series about the boy and a dragon egg?
No… Lord of the Rings was a book before it was a movie!
Oh, somehow I missed this was referencing the movie, not LOTR. I'm with you, book Aragorn for the win!
Oh you must have been thinking of Eragon which does indeed have a boy and a dragon egg… the author took a lot of inspiration from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars imo.
Yes, that one! Does that mean you've read it? I was told it was good and that my 13 yo son would enjoy it.
I would let him read them yes. There’s a few references in them that would maybe warrant a talk, such as:
In one of the later books, the main character’s brother gets his fiance pregnant before he marries her (it’s not explicit)
The main character treats an elf girl’s wounds and has to take her clothes off; he notices how pretty she is (again not explicit, he just thinks she’s, you know, pleasing to the eyes) - Christopher Paolini started writing these when he was 15…
In book two, there’s a scene where the main character wanders into an elvish ‘spring’ festival where ‘love is in the air’ so to speak (between the animals, not elves just to be clear), and because he’s a human, he isn’t immune and goes and makes a crazy proposal to the elf girl previously mentioned (this part isn’t actually too concerning now that I think about it).
Also in book two, there’s a scene where (I don’t remember why) Eragon’s mentor, an elf, is probably bathing or something and Eragon makes an observation that he has no hair anywhere, even on his groin.
There may be a few others, but this series has nothing explicit and a thirteen-year-old is probably not going to notice or skim over them (I didn’t notice until my second or third reread).
So yes, they are good (albeit based pretty heavily off LotR and Star Wars), and a thirteen-year-old boy would definitely enjoy them. But maybe a discussion of certain points (if he notices?) would be warranted.
That's *Eragon*.
Wow. I've always really like Movie Aragorn, but your article really made me think about stuff i never noticed before. I did read all the (main) books before I watched the movies, and did notice the differences, but i honestly like movie Aragorn better. I felt that he had more character development and depth. However, i do know that Tolkien wrote the book Aragorn the way he did because Aragorn was not meant to be the main point in the story, but rather a means. The hobbits, and the destruction of evil were the main points. And like Gandalf says, that its the ordinary everyday things that save the day. Aragorn was meant to be more of a background character in the books. (in fact for most of the writing process, Strider was a hobbit like creature, and very different from the Aragorn we know) Tolkein also had rather a disinterested biew of kings it seems. In the book, Aragorn can sometimes come off as arrogant to me. However, i may need to read the books again. 😁
I concur. The film Aragorn is a much more compelling character than in the books. His humanity is what makes him real vs. the stiff portrayed in the books. His doubt is what distinguishes him from others whose ambitions exceed their talents. Viggo Mortensen, along with Ian McKellen as Gandalf, suited his character the best of all the leads. The portrayal of Frodo as a bumbling, insecure mess is farther from the books than Aragorn, in my view.
I know! I think, as a character in general Movie Frodo is pretty good. But compared to book Frodo, i don't think he was quite right.
This is basically what I think, but just recently I read LotR to a kid for the first time which required me to actually read every word. I then noticed that Aragorn actually does show more indecision and lack of confidence than I ever noticed before. It’s just a lot more interesting than the cliched “but I don’t wanna be king” that Jackson gives us.
Basically, he’s ready to head to Gondor with Boromir, claim his throne, and show some Orcs what’s what. But when Gandalf apparently dies and leaves him in charge, he’s faced with losing that chance and instead ending up leading incompetent hobbits on a quest that almost certainly will lead to a horrible and nameless death. He’s so indecisive that he has them boat down the river as long as he can so they don’t have to choose a bank. He’s obviously far too mature to whine about it but the dilemma is there.
Well considering Gandalf's plan after a certain point can be summed up as "Eru take the wheel," I don't really blame him.
He's also concerned about the Ring and the evil it wrought on his direct ancestor, which in my opinion leads him to be very careful what decisions he makes around it. When Frodo and Sam depart the Fellowship, Aragorn basically says that the Ring and its Bearer had been his foremost concern, and with that immediate responsibility gone he feels more free to make decisions.
Some men cannot truly embrace the greatness of another. I look at Peter Jackson, a visionary and competent director, but I do not see the ability to see pure goodness and competence. Everything has to have a weakness for them and none can be a pure archetype of excellence. It’s a shame. However, you helped me understand why I never cared for the movies as this titular character is so weakened.
Well said. I'll raise you one and risk the ire of all present.
Are Gandalf and Aragorn actually the same character in the books?
Not in terms of stated attributes or background, but in terms of function. Both have no arc, which I love. Both guide the Hobbits and other folk. Both have what we might term a servant-leader destiny. Both are veiled but kingly.
Now of course, the plot affords them accidental attributes that differentiate them. Aragorn is betrothed to Arwen. Gandalf defeats the Balrog. Each can conveniently be in a place where the other isn't. But none of these plot attributes is essential to the core plotline (Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor).
Of course, this is all Friday night speculation. I wouldn't want to read that version. But I can't help but notice how much these two duplicate their function in terms of the core plotline.
Different archetypes. Gandalf is Prophet. Aragorn is King
Something interesting I notice from the books: Gandalf does very little that is “heroic” on-camera. There’s drama around the Balrog and its aftermath, but it all happens in retrospect. He takes the lead with Faramir, but the core heroism is around Pippin & Beregond
Gandalf is either Gandalf Stormcrow, announcing that the time of heroism is at hand, or acts off scene to consolidate the victory with his arrival
Agree on all points, but I think a close second is Gimli. Book Gimli is a deadly orc-killing machine ("never did I see an axe so wielded", according to Aragorn), a prickly but honorable warrior-poet whose bearing and modesty convince Galadriel to advocate for him before numerous high-ranking Elves, a proper noble but with a grim sense of humor and an appreciation for the smaller things in life. He even admits his own failings, most notably when he confesses that the only reason he was able to complete the ride from the Stone of Erech was Aragorn's leadership.
Movie Gimli is a petty blowhard who is the butt of most of the jokes in the series.
The defining moments for me for book!Gimli are, in no particular order:
1. Insulting Eomer to his face in front of all his knights, because the Rohirric noble insulted Galadriel.
2. Asking Galadriel for his gift, and explaining why he wants it.
3. Greeting Legolas after Helm's Deep, where he cheerfully announces his orc tally but is more concerned about his axe being chipped, and immediately inquires how Legolas is doing.
4. His banter with Merry and Pippin outside of the wreck of Isengard.
5. The bit in the Two Towers when Gandalf relays Galadriel's messages to Aragorn and Legolas, and Gimli is disappointed when he thinks she didn't send him any word. A confused Legolas inquires why he's so eager to receive dark news, and wonders if he'd rather get a prediction of his death, to which Gimli replies "Yes, if she had naught else to say."
Excuse you.
I have always been in the minority on this, but I think the Peter Jackson movies are terrible.
I watched them because it was awesome to see the Lord of the Rings on screen and the stuff they got right was spectacular.
But every single change that Jackson made from the original made the plot worse and I just can't bear to rewatch any of the movies.
This was an interesting contrast I hadn’t noticed - made me realize that I had never read/watched them near enough to consider comparing them. I’ll have to take a more critical viewing next time (rather than just chasing a nostalgic feeling)
My dad used to talk about this every time we rewatched LOTR. It bugged him so bad. It's cool to see the argument laid out so well, thank you!
I like movie Aragorn, but only because I think he's very handsome. *swoon* If he was played by someone else I could be a lot more objectively critical.
There is one more thing that Jackson did, that I consider worse than any of these, a complete betrayal of his character: In the extended editions, he depicts the parlay with the Mouth of Sauron before the gates of Mordor. He has Aragorn **betray his word** and slay his foe. This is sheer nihilism, something Aragorn would never do- the fact that he, Aragorn, requested the parlay, then viciously violated it shows that he really had no understanding of Tolkien, or the deep nobility of Aragorn.
He also fails to depict Aragorn taking the Paths of the Dead as something he freely and bravely chooses as necessary so as to meet and fulfill his destiny: in this he is most clearly a type of Christ, who as the Apostles Creed states descended into hell, to harrow it and free the dead.. The Apostles and disciples, like Aragorn’s companions in the book, did not understand what he was doing, and tried to dissuade him, but both Aragorn and Christ knew they had a prophetic destiny that they had to fulfill.
Jackson really hasn’t a deep clue about Tolkien in other words, and really did maim the story to make a mere post modern romance and action movie.
While his portrayal in the movies was far from perfect, I like it way more than book Aragorn — He was so idealized it made him boring.