Aragorn: Books Vs Movies
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- This video is the start of a new series! I’m going to talk about the differences between Aragorn’s character in the book and his character in the movies, theorize about why they’re so different and decide which one is best. Like this video, to boost me in the algorithm, and subscribe if you wanna catch the rest of this series!
Special shoutout to the eternally wonderful Dillon, for editing this one for me. Check out his instagram: / spear.dillon
Donate to my tip jar: ko-fi.com/part...
Follow me on Instagram: / parttimehobbit
Citations are available upon request!
Contact me: parttime.hobbit.business@gmail.com
John Rambo literally breaks down in tears at the end of the movie
Shush
And whole action starts with his mental breakdown...
First Blood is a subversion of every trope that later Rambo movies embrace with their whole hearts.
@davidalan528 yeah i mean the sequels were a cash grab no doubt, but first blood is an awesome movie. I wouldn't even say it's subversive though it's just... deeper. There's definitely something funny going on with the way the word subversion is being used lately
@@AJ0223 I agree, it's as though the analytical terms associated with post-modernism are sort of leaking into the common discourse. I'm mostly all for it even if it means some definitional creep happens.
But I would argue in favor of First Blood as a deliberates subversion, specifically. If you read the novel, it's a pretty raw exploration of the life of a VIetnam vet with untreated CPTSD (prolly with some psychotic features), and it seems to me that it's very deliberately juxtaposed against the narrative of the returning war hero who cleans up the corrupt town that so many post-Western-era vigilante films had as a plot. If I had to name a specific film First Blood subverts, it's Walking Tall, which really set the formula for a lot of those films.
(My personal favorite is Billy Jack)
For me, it's Aragorn's skill at healing that makes him stand out and transcend any stereotype of great warrior king. Aragorn is both a great warrior and a great healer. This is especially important as the Return of the King plays out, middle earth very much needs a strong leader as well as a healer. The movies touch on this lightly, the books moreso.
A major defining moment of Aragorn’s character, for me, was right at the beginning, in the Inn of the Prancing Pony, when he made clear that he was quite capable of TAKING the One Ring, loomed menacingly over the hobbits, then relaxed, drew broken Narsil entirely, smiled and said, “Not much good, is it, Sam?” before re-sheathing it. It wasn’t just a tension breaker; it was a moment of shared mortality and humility. Yes, Aragorn was the uncrowned king of Gondor, but he was also keenly aware of the humor in the essential absurdity of his position both generally and in relation to these hobbits that he’d only just met. He showed the best of his own humanity.
You did something I thought impossible: you actually reconciled me to Movie Aragorn. It really helps to see the similarities to Turin and to hear that Tolkien invested a lot of effort into that complicated character. The social context for the development of the movie also makes a lot of sense, especially considering that Tolkien wrote Book Aragorn in a culture that was still saturated with the idea of a royal heritage, while the movie adaptation was constructed in an era when leadership was much less trusted. Since I prefer the books to the movies, I'll always prefer Book Aragorn; however, the next time I watch the movies, I will definitely appreciate Movie Aragorn significantly more than I have before 😄
It took me a quite a few years to warm up to Movie Aragorn, but I did eventually. While I recognized the differences she talks about here, what I had the most trouble with is his relationship with Eowyn. Even though a lot of the dialog between them is similar, the way it comes across in the book is that he is simply polite and respectful, and once he realizes that she's infatuated with him it simply causes him pain. In the movie he appears to be flirting with her, and certainly doesn't do anything to discourage her until after he meets with Elrond. Yes, in the movie he believes that Arwen is leaving Middle Earth for Valinor, and once I thought about that I was able to reconcile myself to the idea that he's entitled to start looking elsewhere, and that also explains why, after meeting with Elrond and learning that Arwen hasn't left he immediately shuts her down. But the flirting starts before the (flashback) scenes in which we learn that he thinks Arwen is lost to him, and I think that's a mistake in the editing. It really makes him look like a cad for a while.
@@hkpew .
@@hkpewI always thought the flirting came more from her, and he was just trying to be nice
@@hkpewHe didn't flirt with her.
I think that the Cinema Therapy episode about Aragorn might help you love movie Aragorn more too! Not to mention all the BTS stuff about Viggo
I had often suspected that book Aragorn was inspired by a more ancient perspective -- the the kind of ancient and early medieval legend and literature Tolkien loved and heavily borrowed from a good true king is a true king and is happy to take the throne, not because of being power hungry but because they now that is where they belong and can do the most good. When adapting to more contemporary audiences this eagerness to take the throne would seem suspect, as we've all learn to be untrusting of those who seem to seek power. For that reason is was important for Peter Jackson to telegraph that Aragorn was not someone hungry for power, and so adopted a presentation of Aragorn as some willing to take on the burdens and responsibility of the throne but uncertain if he was really up to it.
Jackson's Aragorn feels like he was written in 1999 by a Hollywood studio. He doesn't look or feel like a character ripped out of ancient myth. PJ did not adapt LotR. He just rewrote it with a vaguely medieval aesthetic.
@@brooksboy78Dude, I don’t know what you’re smoking, but you sound like a hipster circa 2009.
@@brooksboy78 thats just bs. PJ did a very good job in adapting LotR; I couldn't imagine it being done much better even if there are of course flaws.
Rationalind PJ rewriting the Aragorn character?
I wouldn't say that book Aragorn is "better", but in a modern context, he's more unique.
Reluctant heroes, who have to fight their inner demons before they can fulfil their destiny, have been the norm for decades now. Characters, who know what they want and pursue their goals firmly, are mostly villains. This makes sense, since it makes both sides less black-and-white. Movie Aragorn is rooted in this.
The cool thing about book Aragorn is that he never uses his grand goals or his higher calling as an excuse to act immorally. He's a "true King", like the ones from old legends. Compare and contrast him with Boromir, who is in a very similar situation, but also more prideful due to his upbringing. Aragorn starts the book as an already finished character because his job in the story is not to learn lessons (that's what the Hobbits are there for) but to progress the larger narrative. Yet, Tolkien manages to give us a glimpse of the trials Aragorn already went through, in the way other characters (mainly Gandalf) talk about him.
While movie Aragorn teaches us to strive to be better, book Aragorn teaches us to *stay good* even when the going gets tough.
Well said
I would argue that book Aragorn’s resolve to stay true to his morals and to fulfill his destiny is a arc in itself. Yes, he does not change, but he changes the world around him and inspires courage. He is a type of Superman/Captain América character (to use a more modern pop culture hero), whose challenge is precisely not falling to the temptations that other powerful beings fell to and to show us that we have to have hope.
I think that people of today just dont relate as much to the idea of a character that was born into supremacy and has no flaws. Its almost unbelievable, as today we realize even the most famous figures in history were at their core similar to ordinary people, and were deeply flawed in many ways.
I guess a lot of people today want to see themselves in characters and thus want to see them overcome struggles and doubts just like we do. In some ways people of today dont respect people who have had everything at birth as the current day perceived sign of how strong you are as a person is not your blood, but your ability to overcome any obstacle. Thats why so many may relate to movie aragorn more than book.
Also he was 6ft 6
great views. but remember, the flawed man wasn't the norm till the mentioned matrix, fight club and lotr happened. it is the norm now. a modern sample of what you mentioned is captain america in the mcu. his values didn't change but the world changed around him and he had to adapt as his trial, and he did but retaining his core values. anyway book and movie aragorn are great, and movie aragorn is probably my favorite in this norm.
The one thing that surprised me was how much more verbose Aragorn is in the books. He's a major source of exposition there. In the movies, much less so. Nonetheless, I think Viggo is the perfect choice for the character and I wouldn't change that for anything.
Legolas and Gimli are also verbose in the books.
What about the appearance? Does Viggo’s Aragorn match the description in the books?
Other than being a good 6-8 inches too short, Viggo was great.
Book Aragorn. While I love the movies, I grew up reading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Strider, or Aragorn was why my first D&D character was a Ranger. His confidence always helped this shy, unsure kid be more courageous and sure of himself.
My first character was also modeled after Aragorn. I wasn't sure how to play DND until the captain of the ship that transported me to Aetherias was extorted for an exorbitant docking fee. And those ruffians had to learn the justice of my blade
This was an incredible analysis! I love how you cross referenced the differences between book Aragorn and move Aragorn with character trends over the decades. Keep up the good work, dude!
Thanks so much!
Movie aragorn is my favorite.
His ability to rise to the challenges of his life and meet them head on always hit home. Also, a good leader in my mind is one who serves the people. Viggo nailed that.
Can we just get deep dives into all the major Silmarillion characters?
Movie Aragorn may have worked out better on screen, but he massively undersells the Aragorn Tolkien envisioned. This goes into why everyone should read and understand the books too.
I think the books did a fine job of presenting the character in a non-toxic and masculine way. I think Aragorn’s constant hesitation was far over the top of what was needed to create the effect they wanted. For me that is the core issue with the films; though I give Peter Jackson credit for being the only man in Hollywood willing to take such a massive risk on LotR he is and always will be a schlocky, gore porn director who lacks the nuance that was needed to make these films the best they could have been. Instead of planting the seed of Aragorn’s doubt in the mind of the viewer you are instead bludgeoned about the head with it whenever possible. In the books it is mentioned that he didn’t want to leave the north, but he understood it was what needed to be done because the things that made him want to stay would be destroyed if he did not act, and many of them would be gone no matter what. That Aragorn could take all of that on without becoming blind with rage is another testament to his gentle character that sort of gets tossed aside in favor of the movie’s interpretation. I agree that he had to have some element of that to get over with modern audiences. I think that they simply went a bit to far with it and diluted the essence of the character.
The comparison between Turin and book Aragorn isn't something I've seen before, but it's fascinating! I guess when I read the Children of Hurin, I was more focused on the dragon and internally yelling at the characters for making dumb mistakes than anything else...
There's a youtuber Tolkien Untangled it's the channel and he is doing a series of videos on The children of Hurin and in one of the videos he said that Turin was the Anti-aragorn but not in the Turin is "bad guy" way but more in the even though Turin is doing what he thinks is right everything goes wrong. It's actually a good analysis and I'm not doing it very good justice haha.
To be fair, Turin was labouring under the curse of Morgoth. Anything he tried was turned against him and he couldn’t outrun his fate in the end. Aragorn didn’t exactly have that to deal with, though I guess he internalised the weakness of men narrative, the fall of numenor, Isildur’s failure, collapse of Arnor.
Fr there's a lot of yelling at Túrin when I read that book
For anyone who sees this and might be interested despite me being a year late, I can strongly recommend Cinema Therapy and the video they did on Aragorn when it comes to explorations of healthy masculinity. It's admittedly focused on film Aragorn, but it's still worth a watch for anyone who might already love film Aragorn, or for those who haven't really connected with him on an emotional level.
Book Aragorn is also sassy! Especially in Bree
I think both versions have something going for them. Book-Aragorn is self-assured, but not to the point of being shallow or arrogant. And he's certainly not all stoic, he has doubts about the ways through Moria and how to approach the hunt for Merry and Pippin, once the fellowship broke. He has already made up his mind about his identity, but that doesn't mean that he has nothing to lose. As a ranger and Dunadan, he is the last hope for their weakened house to escape the shadows and live a peaceful live again. Gimli and Legolas and yes, Boromir are no outsiders in their societies and have nothing to prove and (mostly) nothing to lose once they come home. Aragorn is more similar to Faramir in that regard, who IS an outsider and MUST prove his worth over and over again, and they both fight to gain someone's love.
Movie-Aragorn also has all of that. But Book-Aragorn already knows that he can only push forward, so he does. After all, that's what he has always done.
Movie-Aragorn doesn't quite has this weariness, he feels much younger, gentler and hesistant. Which works still fine, as long as they don't mention his true age 😁
I think book Aragorn has as many doubts as film Aragorn, the difference is in what.
Film Aragorn doubts he can overcome his inheritence of blood and fears he will fail as his ancestor did.
Book Aragorn has no such doubts about his destiny, but he does have doubts about his ability to actually do it. This is most clear following the events of Parth Galen all the way to meeting Gandalf in Rohan, where Aragorn pins the blame for everything that happened and the failure of the Fellowship upon himself "All I have done this day has gone amiss!" Oddly enough the book inspired line Gandalf says to Aragorn about this in the film, "do not regret your decision to leave Frodo" always struck me as odd in the film, as Aragorn displays no such doubts or regrets in the film post Parh Galen, in fact his parting scene with Frodo which is film only contradicts any notion he thought it was a mistake, he chooses to not only let Frodo go but actively orders him to go, but he does have doubts and regret about it in the book. So a strange line for the film to have left in really.
To be fair, the "do not regret your decision to leave frodo" scene only Added in the extended edition.
@@hienvinh4680 That makes sense. Its been so long since I saw the theatrical versions I tend to think of the extended as the default version and forget exactly what was in which version. One wonders then if it's a remnant from an earlier draft that struck a closer note to the books in this regard, and Aragorn originally did display some regret of his decision.
Aragorn doesn’t order Frodo to go. When Frodo asks him “Would you destroy it?” and holds out the ring, Aragorn closes Frodo’s hand and says “I would have gone with you to the end…” he’s accepting Frodo’s decision to leave the Fellowship, not telling him to. Aragorn then tells him to run because the uruks are approaching.
As Boromir dies Aragorn says “I let Frodo go.” It’s pretty clear language that Aragorn didn’t force Frodo to leave.
I saw a lot of worry for Frodo in Mortensen’s portrayal of Aragon. What must be written out in a book doesn’t have to be so explicit in a film. To me it’s conveyed in the look Aragorn gives across the Anduin as Legolas pushes the boat towards the water. It’s subtle but Mortensen’s performances generally are.
@@chaiv8182 When Sting starts to glow blue Aragorn orders Frodo to run and to go, so he does send him away. The point being film Aragorn was there for Frodo's decision to go, did not disagree with it, and sent him off to do it while he stayed to defend and give him a chance to leave. That does not leave the sort of room for doubt or regret that book Aragorn, who did not even know Frodo had gone till after the event, had. And him still being regretful for letting Frodo go in the circumstances the film presents doesn't really make any sense, Viggo's excellent portrayal aside (there are moments I'm sure Viggo is just ignoring the actual script and just playing what's on the book page anyway!)
You know, I never had a problem with Movie Aragorn per se, even though I grew up with Book Aragorn (age hint). I enjoyed it, and I loved the story they told. The only disappointing aspect to me of Movie Aragorn was the LOSS of some very very awesome parts of his characters experience in the books, which they could not put in the movie because it would not fit with his arc. The book parts I speak of require a quiet confidence (and even slight prescience) that are part of his book persona. Namely (Spoilers for those who have not read the books) his WARNING to Gandalf about Moria, and his feeling that if the company entered there that he was not worried about the company but GANDALF SPECIFICALLY would be in danger there; the struggle between Aragorn and Sauron via the Palantir where Aragorn purposefully taunts Sauron in order to trip him up and BAIT him in order to SCARE HIM into making mistakes, thereby shaping the last battle; yeah. A few more I think, but I don’t remember them now. I miss seeing those on screen
In fairness, the extended edition does have the Palantir scene with Aragorn and Sauron, though Sauron uses it to try and convince Aragorn that Arwen is dead, (which actually makes him more willing to do everything in his power to assure Frodo's success.)
The foreshadowing part is just a touch on the nose. I felt the movies handled this better with Dungeon Master Saruman speaking for Gandalf's inner fears.
Iove the movies but most main characters are better in the books.. their background stories explain a lot about their character and behaviour and it is foreign to contemporary thinking. Aragorn grew up with the significance of his bloodline defining him. He is not young and he doesn't struggle to find Identity because he knows who he is. Same goes with a kot more characters that are changed a lot from book to film, Gimli , the hobbits Faramir etc
Pushing away addiction (in the movie, where he pushes the ring away). My step-father (as it turned out) was a coke-head, a pill-addict, and an alcoholic. Growing up, I always ran into a near-support for addiction & nothing but excuses on his behalf. The background of people "filling their arm" was pretty pervasive. Not being that has always been important to me & that scene really meant a lot. It really stood out!
Sorry this is so late in the game, but I just stumbled upon your channel 2 days ago. Liking it a lot. I loved your analysis of the 2 Aragorns. However, I think you have mischaracterized several 80's male action leads. Every Rocky film is about the man getting into the right emotional state to be able to succeed. Conan is a man who has suffered terrible loss and slavery, but still makes good friends and falls in love. Die Hard is about a man who goes through hell to keep his family together (and save Christmas). First Blood is about a man who endured terrible things while fighting on behalf of a country who apparently hate him when he returns. There are many other examples of emotionally complex male leads from the 80's. And if you haven't seen these movies, I recommend them highly.
Very adroitly articulated, want vs need, plot vs story/theme. Insightful and articulate, well played! 👏
Book Aragorn for me. Coincidentally, I was raised in the 80's.
It’s important to point out that it’s not that simple. Aragorn doesn’t have confidence in his right to rule or as the air to the throne out of nowhere or innate ability to rule. He grew up not knowing about his heritage, he didn’t know he was destined to be king. When he learned of this he became brash and desperate to learn more of his heritage, but he was encouraged to wait, so he trained with his people to become a ranger of the northern kingdom, before returning to rivendale and learning he wasn’t ready, realising that he wasn’t capable to being king yet. The books just take place after his realisation. Which is why he comes across as confident and steadfast in his resolve and appears to have fully embraced his destiny, because he has accepted he isn’t ready. He isn’t desperate to achieve something or running away from something he fears he isn’t prepared for. He’s just accepting that he will have to be ready one day. And that gives him the opportunity to focus on being who he is, which is arguably the king he is destined to become.
Great comparison between Aragorn and Turin, I never thought about it that way! Turin is my favourite Tolkien character, he makes mistakes and punishes himself for them, and there's a constant inner turmoil that fits the tragedies that surround him. Book Aragorn struck me as too perfect. In taking away the strict and controlling aspect of medieval/traditional masculinity but leaving all the other traits of the perfect leader, he's simply an idealized version that feels to me unrealistic and just convenient for the plot rather than a complex character.
The sad fact of movie adaptations is, no matter how much they might try to be true to a timeless story, they always have to be shaped by the social context at the time they're produced. The nature of cinema as a capital-intensive medium makes that immutable - unless we put more crowdfunding support into small-scale fan films. Maybe we'd be better off if the only movie adaptations ever made of Tolkien were like that: fan movies that went for about a half hour each and only tackled a couple of episodes out of the whole book. It would be like it says in "Mythopoeia": bringing little bits of impure and scanty gold to "mint in image blurred of distant king."
But that's not what's happened so far.
There are many moments in Viggo's performance of Aragorn that flesh out the character beautifully for me: meeting the Hobbits at the Prancing Pony, guiding them to and from Rivendell, comforting Boromir as he dies... then there are things that irk me: quarrelling with Boromir, cutting off the head of the Mouth of Sauron ... and that self-doubt. I appreciate your pointing out why the screenwriters amplified that self-doubt, and I see how it shows up in the books between Parth Galen and Fangorn Forest; I still think the screenwriters overdid it.
Despite that, I still find Viggo's performance full of strength and tenderness that inspire me every time I watch the movies.
I like that the book have Aragorn credentials. There’s a REASON that he is a badass on the battlefield. Ranger is a hard earned and well respected title in the books, but it seems like it’s just a nice word for vagabond in the movies. At least that’s how it comes off to me.
Recently discovered your channel, and simply loving diving in!
Book Aragorn inspired me on what I should be as a man. Movie Aragorn made me believe I could achieve those ideals.
the aragorn of the books is the classic hero, he is solemn, kind and magnificent, however there are moments in the book that bother me a bit, the way in which aragorn rejects the ring is very simple, on the other hand the comparison that is established between this and the fall of his ancestor isildur in the movies, helps to see a more human aragorn.
As much as I love the LOTR books, I like movie Aragorn better (I also got into the series via the movies I grew up with) because he is more relatable. I like the whole reluctant hero vibe he embodies having doubts and struggles but perseveres through his courage making it a journey as opposed to an OP character with no flaws, true he is special and a Numenorean but is burdened by the legacy he inherited and situation bigger than himself he found himself in but does what he can as best he can anyway, watching him overcome his trials is great and inspiring! I love that moment he has with Frodo on Amon Hen in movies both touching and epic!
Not too many UA-camr Lord of the Rings girls out there kinda refreshing lol love your cup btw! *subscribed*
I totally agree! Book Aragorn is an incredibly admirable character, but I've always found the movie version to be more relatable and nuanced.
My mug is named Ferdinand, I'll pass the compliment on to him.
Thanks so much for watching and subscribing!!
The "reluctant hero" trope is a modern storytelling convention developed by American blockbusters. Tell me: do you think that would have been appropriate for a story attempting to evoke medieval romances and heroic legends?
I just want to say that I'm loving these videos and I hope you'll do one on Eowyn soon!
Now, as for this video, I prefer movie!Aragorn. I'm a major sucker for character development, and while Aragorn is my least favorite member of the Fellowship (Boromir fan), his character development was non-existent in the books. The scene where Elrond appears and brings Anduril was such an amazing thing to watch, and I loved the theme that Howard Shore composed. Whereas Aragorn having the sword the whole time and then whipping it out every five minutes was anticlimactic and rather annoying to me. Do you really expect me to believe that everyone is just supposed to take his word for it that the sword is the reforged Narsil? Every time he did his "Elendil!" thing, I wanted to reach into the book, grab him by the collar and tell him to chill. I feel that book!Aragorn was very much a Gary Stu. Everyone he met seemed to fall in love with him/want to follow him right away, he seemed so perfect and flawless, had no major weaknesses, and also referring back to my comment about everyone taking his word for it that he actually was the rightful heir to the throne of Gondor and did in fact possess the reforged sword of Elendil, even though they had just met him.
I liked that he was modest and had doubts in the films. Even though he was raised by Elves, he was still human, and that doubt in the back of his mind allowed him to hold onto his humanity, rather than completely turn away from it. Also, his complicated relationship with Boromir made more sense to me than the book, where Boromir just kind of rolled over and said "I know we just met, but here are the keys to the castle that my family has been protecting for centuries!" Boromir was still treated unfairly in the books by him, and other members of the Fellowship, but I enjoyed the hostility that the films portrayed. It really made Aragorn's acceptance of his destiny more powerful for me. Maybe I'm a horrible person, but one of my favorite movie scenes was when Theoden said "When last I looked, Theoden, not Aragorn, was king of Rohan." If the films had gone with the book character, Theoden would have just said, "You know, you're right. You're much better at this whole king thing than I am anyway, so why don't you just take command of my army?" Instead, Theoden saw what kind of leader Aragorn was at Helm's Deep, and he acknowledged that. That scene was also a demonstration that kings need to know when to pick their battles. Theoden chose his people's safety and taking a defensive position, and Aragorn opted not to further argue against Theoden's choice.
Have you considered that everything that you (and honestly almost everyone) find annoying in Aragorn is precisely his flaw? That he thinks he can whip out a flashy sword and claim command over anyone because of being the heir to Gondor (even while not in Gondor, and not actually being the King yet)?
This flaw of his is most visible when he does this to Háma in the Hall of Théoden, when Háma commands that they leave their weapons behind. Aragorn refuses to because "I'm the heir of Isildur bruh" and Háma is all like "whatever, this is Théoden's hall and your will means nothing here mate". Gandalf himself has to convince Aragorn to follow through. This is the OG version of the movie line you quote (Théoden, not Aragorn, was King of Rohan).
Théoden grows to acknowledge and respect Aragorn because he's meant to be among the "wise/good" specter of characters (and this serves to show why he's a Good Ruler amongst his people, most of who distrust Aragorn at the beginning, all except Éomer)
Contrast this whit the scene where he does not whip his sword and shout his titles, but rather waits for Faramir to do that, and to ask the very people of Gondor if they wanted Aragorn tu rule. At the moment of truth, Aragorn was not the overly-eager, arrogant, and narcisistic Gary Stu that he was during The Two Towers; he had learned that he was not meant to command everyone, rather serve his people as they needed.
@@andresrecchia3600 Maybe arrogance is his one and only flaw, but it's written so subtly that it's more of an annoyance than an actual character flaw. Another character who was blatantly arrogant was Saruman, but it was obvious to the readers that he was deeply flawed. Yes, I do remember that scene with Hama--that's precisely what I was thinking of when I talked about him whipping out his sword and expecting everyone to believe his claim that it was the reforged Narsil. And yes, he does change his tune a little bit in ROTK when he places Imrahil in charge. It's just not as memorable as the development the other characters went through. Hell, even Lobelia Sackville-Baggins had more character development in ROTK than Aragorn did.
I've also noticed a lot of people say "Just read the appendices. His growth happened in his earlier years." Okay, if that's true, then why did Legolas and Gimli, who are both way older than him and had major life experiences of their own prior to the Council of Elrond, change more in the trilogy than he did? Those two went from hating each other (and each other's kin) to Legolas building his own boat and smuggling Gimli into Valinor. Merry and Pippin grew up a lot and fought for Rohan and Gondor respectively, and Gandalf literally died and was resurrected; not to mention Sam and Frodo's journey and struggle. And though I wished he'd had a longer redemption arc than the one he got, Boromir is the most complex and nuanced character (and my favorite). Maybe Aragorn did "change" but it was stale in comparison. That is how I interpreted it, and there is nothing wrong with individual readers having different interpretations of the same book.
@@luciferslegionsi wouldnt say his arrogant, just proud of his heir (not uncertain of it like the movies), the only reason he shows he sword is cuz he doesnt want waste time and just wants to get to the point of things already,
aragorn in both versions in quite rumble tbh since he kepts secrect his true king identity until he has to say it, and He has no problem in admitting He doesnt look or dresses good and even blames hismself for shit aint his fault, i would say his flaws are keeping a lot of self weight and being to anxious sometimes,
but He doesnt have many flaws indeed cuz his characther wasnt written to have many flaws, he was written to be the humble, kind, brave, strong ideal version of a man/king.
With all that being said, movie aragorn is great too, and i prefer him more tbh, because i like caracthersni can identify, like his flaws of being insecure, but tbh aragorn after paleonor fields movie aragorn became book aragorn basically, humble yet confident, the movie version was his caracther arc i would say
I think they work in different ways. Aragorn is depicted in the manner of heroes from Norse sagas as his character is seen through his actions and viewed by the other characters and the reader rom the outside. I though the self doubt and worry he displayed in the films worked great heroes in many stories still have that and Tolkien doesn't say he never feels it just doesn't show it. What does work better for me about the books is the kingship being proven by his skills as a healer rather than being able to summon a ghost army (ugh). In a sense it is Strider not Aragorn who is crowned king
I totally get that. I wonder if Peter Jackson and Co were worried that the nuance of proving his worthiness through gentleness and healing wouldn't have carried to unobservant audiences in the shortened runtime. Maybe they changed it because they were worried it wouldn't carry?
I definitely agree that the book's approach is a more nuanced and unique approach to the concept of Kingship though.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Possibly. But I also think Jackson loses his head where ghosts and gribblies are concerned. He can't help it lol
@@simeonteitelbaum3673 Absolutely. Sometimes it's reminiscent of an 11 year old with a multi-million dollar budget
Jackson certainly overdid the ghost army, but prophecy plays a significant role in the books, and both the ghost army and the healing are fulfillments of prophecy that in their own ways and contexts establish Aragorn's authority.
If there's one character arc I love, it is finding confidence
Aragorn being unsure of himself is something I'm sure a lot of us can relate to
It's very easy to doubt your abilities and think you aren't fit for great things
But then he does it. Not only does Aragorn accept the crown, but he does it his way. He is still the good man he always was, but is now comfortable in the role of king
And then makes us all cry with the whole "you bow to no one" scene
I bet the UK only dreams of having monarchs like that
aye Fight Club is definitely one of my personal top fives!😂 First time I saw it in 2004, several years after it came out, I was so blown away and did not expect the ending!
Aragorn had self doubt in the books as well. "All my choices have gone wrong..." After Gandalf falls in Kazhad Dum...
That being said, I love your descriptions, your arguments, and your conclusions. Very well done, Ma'am!!!
Haven't watched your video yet cause still at work but the title intrigued me. I'd say, personal opinion, it's the difference between eating sushi and cooked fish, there are pros and cons for both but yeah I'll watch the video when I get home haha
Something fairly major that occurred to me was Aragorn beheading the mouth of Sauron in the movie being quite a contrast to the book. The ethical and moral contrast being quite pointed. I with Jackson hadn't yielded to that temptation.
I love the music you have in the background. Regarding Aragorn, I'd have to say I like both, perhaps for different reasons, but they both speak to me on a deeper level than many if not most central male characters. It is interesting, that the rather unhealthy male "qualities" boys were raised to seek so long ago that were once again apparent when J.R.R. was raised, were extremely central to the male identity that plagued those of us raised by World War II parents. Stoic, never cry nor show your pain or emotions, in control and thick-skinned, the image we were raised with was indeed toxic - especially to the boys raised as such.
One quality that is, I think, essential to any well-developed male personality is humility - as opposed to the blatant, ugly arrogance that seems to pervade society these days. Aragorn, although part of a very superior bloodline with a royal destiny, a man with superior skills in warfare, leadership, and many of the things that the toxic parents misinterpret and misunderstand, still remained humble, retaining his humility throughout both the book and the movie. In the movie, it is taken further than humility - he seems nearly riven with self-doubt. It seems to be when his adoptive father, Elrond, in the movie, rides out to bring him the Sword that was Broken and sends him on the path no man has survived, that Aragorn really begins to accept his place and his role. I could go on, but the important thing is that both men were Rangers and Kings, and were men we could all do well to emulate.
The music was good but too loud as background.
I'm looking forward to seeing your analyses of Faramir and Denethor. It always seemed to me that the Peter Jackson movies didn't really do them justice. Boromir and Aragorn both had some benefits from their movie portrayals, and the changes in their characters made sense for the differences in the perception of masculinity between when Tolkien wrote and when the movies came out, but I had some issues with the changes made to Faramir and Denethor. I'm curious as to your thoughts on them.
What a great analysis Jess! I’d never considered the comparison between Turin and Aragorn before, very enlightening. The story of Turin is a great tragedy (in the fullest sense) and one that deserves to be better known. As someone who lived with the book for a quarter century before Jackson’s films came out I naturally prefer book Aragorn. I think hints of the self doubt are there (for example at the breaking of the fellowship) but not developed. There is still an enormous interior journey to be made from Strider to Elessar. Thanks for these great videos, I first saw the Tom Bombadil now I’m going back through the rest.
Cinema Therapy have a video called 'ARAGORN vs. Toxic Masculinity' that I think you would absolutely love!
I prefer Book Aragorn, but a lot of that is finding some of the plot changes in the films a bit stupid/clumsy/needless. Letting Arwen sneak up on him in the forest for example felt like it undermined his skills without any great pay off from there. I don't think the journey of Aragorn growing in to his confidence is antithetical to Tolkien, but I feel like that journey was one that Aragorn undertook before Frodo sets off for Bree when it is loosely described in the appendices. While I see where you're coming from with Movie Aragorn, I feel like that exploration of masculinity would maybe have been better off divided amongst the supporting male characters, some of who feel really short changed by the movies (Faramir particularly, but I was also underwhelmed by the movie versions of Theoden and Denethor).
Also, the near death fake out where he falls off a cliff felt horribly contrived...
Superb analysis and narrative! Thanks so much for sharing! (Your content rocks!)
I wish Jackson had developed more of the mystery of Aragorn when he was still just Strider the Ranger with unknown powers and abilities. All of that subtlety was lost and his is simply introduced as the hobbits’ guide and protector. It took a long time in the books for him to reveal that he was actually a king.
Agreed. Legolas blurting out that Boromir owed Aragorn his allegiance at the Council of Elrond was a mistake in the films. Aragorn's true identity was much more gradually revealed in the books.
I think your observation that there is a dash of Hurin in movie Aragorn is inspired and correct, it's humanized Aragorn and made him more accessible than the Flawless Paragon in the books, the truth is that I've only seen Aragorn as a role model as I've always thought of myself as a good person in the world that is darkening and as it darkened he shine all the brighter.
Books. The movies made him weak and indecisive. He as not that. He was grown man taking his fate in his hands to become the King of Arnor & Gondor.
I am often swung to your thinking due to your hypnotizing eyes and voice, but something you didn't bring up was Aragorn's age and wisdom that comes with it. As I become older and wiser, I look differently on things that I went through as a younger man. I'm sure Aragorn went through the same things, but having the body of a 30 year old and the wisdom of an 87 year old makes him unique. If I could only take my wisdom back to when I was in my 30ish body!
I've been watching your videos for the last few days. Really enjoy your perspective and the background you present, your videos are really well done.
I would say I disagree with what you claim is Neo's need. What he wanted was to be free, what he needed was to believe. He needed to believe there was a higher purpose. He needed to believe in himself. That belief is what unlocked his potential as " The one."
This is made clear by a number of key character moments for him and the people around him who also start to believe in him to varying extents. Morpheus believes in him from the beginning, and is pleased when he sees Neo " is starting to believe." Trinity finally accepting him as the one and not rejecting her feelings of love for him is also a key moment in this belief journey. There are numerous scenes I believe support this but no space here.
Wow... you'd think due to the ring he bears, and his beloved, that Aragorn would be compared to Beren... but the comparison to Turin is fascinating, and not something I've ever thought of. I love the tale of Turin... especially comparing him to his cousin Tuor. They have such similar stories, except for one key difference, Turin was cursed by the gods, and Tuor was favoured. Almost literally Tolkien's version of "there but for the grace of god, go I."
Cursed vs favoured! Of course, I’ve never seen it so plainly. I do love their parallel lives and their sole (almost) meeting.
@@peternoble3691 Yep. Orphaned by war, raised by Elves in exile, relentlessly hunted by the Enemy, became great warriors, were both one of the leaders of a hidden Elven Noldor kingdom, had an Elven princess' love..... the comparisons go on and on.
What's weird today is that 2 two tribes (conservative and progressive) are going in exactly different directions with regards to masculinity...yet both sides still have massive man-crushes on Aragorn.
Conservative is moving towards Aragorn, or maybe a Capt. Aubrey type, progressive is moving towards nothing at all.
@@Jim-Mc I agree. But the liberal crush on Aragorn remains.
I really like how much detail you bring out in your videos when you discuss the differences between the LotR books and the Peter Jackson films.
It saves me from having to reread our rewatch them for the umpteenth time just to find that one specific tidbit that was tickling the back of my mind.
Although, you should've done more research before comparing them to the entirety of 80s action films. You're essentially painting this genre with a firehose instead of a paintbrush.
Sorry, the very idea that Jackson could have written a 'better' Aragorn than Tolkien is just something I can't stomach.
Exactly!
You gotta watch Die Hard or Lethal Weapon to appreciate action movies. In Die Hard, John is the opposite of Rambo and uses cunning and sarcasm. Lethal Weapon, Riggs is suicidal so his action stunts are acts of self harm hidden as heroism
Aragorn in the book constantly fails, and picks himself up. He is vividly aware at all times of his vulnerability, though he's proud as hell to be who he is. But thats how he rolls. In the movies he is more of a cartoon superhero.
Movie Aragorn is a protagonist of the story, maybe as much as Frodo is. Book Aragorn really isn't, he isn't really changed by his part in the story because he's already become what he needs to be during the previous nearly 90 years of his life. He goes through trials and hardships. but they don't so make him a king as reveal him to already be the king. I don't doubt, though, that the story of his years as a ranger, and travelling through the south, includes a lot of character growth. It could be a fantastic story, and one I kind of wish Tolkien had told. If Amazon had given me half a billion dollars and asked me to create a Middle Earth series I think that might be what I'd have targeted, though the decision to tell the story of the Second Age wasn't a bad one either. (The execution, on the other hand, ...)
As much as I LOVE the lotr books I to actually like movie Aragorn better, mostly because he displays (as you said) both doubt, fear and so on, and that, we can all see in ourselves which results in him being more human and relatable. Book Aragorn on the other hand doesnt show any of these traits which makes him sometimes seem arrogant even and he is more like a rolemodel of sorts, such as Jesus was for Tolkien, something you can never achieve but should always strive towards. Dont get me wrong I love them both
In the books he was not arrogant, just proud and had sassy humor( the movie just sometimes, i prefer the book in that regard) , but sometimes impatient tbh, in the movie he is calmer, wich i prefer, but more insecure, wich i also prefer cuz is relatable, but He becames more proud at the end of rotk, só for me is like movie aragorn ultimatly becomes book aragorn in the end. Also, book aragoen is still very humble and gentle, as he even let frodo and sam sit in his freaking trhone
@@flaviapetrorossidefigueire6044to modern readers he does come across as arrogant in the books. I read them after watching the movies cause Aragorn was my fave movie character and was shocked that I actually disliked book Aragorn. He’s basically just an emotionless perfect god. There’s no relatability and at times he does come across as egotistical and full of himself with a bit of a god saviour complex. Not very likeable at all. All I can say is I’m so grateful I have the movie character to love cause book Aragorn was horrible lacked complexity and too perfect basically he was a Mary Sue.
very good arguments. I prefer Aragorn in the book and find the film version a little hard to relate to. But I see why they did it that way and had no other good options. I don't mind film Aragorn. Many others are far worse IMO. Gimli perhaps the most annoying.
Ok, this was brilliant & I have a million thoughts about book vs movie Aragorn, but right now I really just want to know where I can get a mug like that.
Rambo cried
It is a very interesting question because book-Aragorn was meant to be a solid protector for Frodo who even off-camera, if you will, is the whole point, right up to and including where he is overtaken by events at the Crack of Doom. So Aragorn's needs were largely irrelevant, as Tolkien saw it (I don't completely agree, but then, that is another question, involving both tone and pace). Ironically, movie-Aragorn steps forward and his emotional arc is quite important to the tone, pace and even purpose of the epic. And here, Jackson's main rule for whether any detail whether from the source or inserted by the scriptwriters, was that it advance the sole question of 'Frodo and the Ring'. I find this balancing question fascinating.
I absolutely love Viggo Mortensen's take on Aragorn. But if pressed, I must confess I prefer Book Aragorn, only because he feels more completely realized than would be possible in a film adaptation. Jackson's team did a phenomenal job adapting Book Aragorn, who is (despite what many seem to think) frought with doubts, occasionally deeply troubled and shaken, but never failing to keep pressing onward--but it is done in a more subtle and realistic manner.
I feel we don’t give John hurt enough credit as a kinda cool version. Yes it’s different, not quite ‘Aragon’ but if they changed his name and it was in a different fantasy movie. It would be sooo much more remembered.
I prefer book Aragorn because he shows you can be great, strong and inspiring without needing to be agressive or intimidating. His tenderness and humility is a lesson to any person who is in a position to lead and influence others: you should serve first and is not above anyone. But I love book Aragorn and I think both characters have many positive traits in common. Great video!
Excellent exposition! I never made the connection between Aragorn and Turin before.
The thing that makes the Lord of the Rings be so loved by men is that it sings praises to the sacrifices and trials of the average men, which are often overlooked, especially in this post modern era. Aragorn both in the book and in the movie often reflects the way men generally treat each other when they are in exclusively male spaces, with brotherly love and friendship. Aragorn is the King, but is still an human, an human with the same self doubts of the average man, which he shows in some parts of the book and in many parts of the movie. He is still masculine and won't cry in front of women, but will certainly show his emotion to his buddies, as we, average men, do so often.
Interesting analysis. Viggo did a great job portraying PJ's Aragorn. However the angsty and doubting movie Aragorn is grating, and far inferior to book Aragorn. The "I'm not worthy and don't want any power" was old even in the Middle Ages. It was an act then, as it is today. So when movie Aragorn says he don't want power, I'm thinking "Yeah, right."
I think Aragorn knew the story of Turin, and this was one thing which helped inform his decisions. Book Aragorn might have some in common with the heroes of medieval literature, and that might be part why I prefer book Aragorn. Most of the fiction I have read over the past couple of years are medieval works or mythology (besides Tolkien).
I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings just before the Peter Jackson movies came out. I'm pretty sure the book and movie characters have merged in my brain because of this.
I probably need to go back and read the books to get to know the book versions of the characters again.
7:20; definitely correct, imo, about the 80s action movie trend. I definitely love some of them… the ones that were well done and had an actually good story line that followed a well told story with your standard rising action, climax, denoument. Of course most of those 80s action movies are certainly laughable nowadays and I enjoy laughing at the silliness of some of them but I can usually only hold myself to the screen for like, 20 minutes they’re just so silly.
Book Aragorn for the win. Frustrating that Aragorn's line when he loses Frodo and Sam (somehting along the lines of "all my decisions have turned to ill") didn't make it into the movie as it fits the movie characterization of the character perfectly. Any time the actual dialog can make it in the film is a plus, imo. That's why I thought the Bilbo meeing Gandalf scene in the Hobbit - UJ was great. And then pffft.
In the books, Aragorn knew both his desires and his needs with clarity. He found peace in accepting that he had to overcome all challenges before being worthy of what he ultimately wanted. He also experiences moments of doubt and introspection regarding his worthiness. Though not necessarily the best version for a modern audience i believe all men should aspire to be like him.(the doubt of movie Aragorn is more in your face which makes his intentions less suspicious as a lot of you already said)
The Rambo cutout on your thumbnail brough me here. Nicely done.
Reading the books after watching the movies, book Aragorn was my greatest disappointment. He wasn't an important character to me in the books: he seemed barely human, more of a plot device. In the books he was King on page one. Movie Aragorn: caring, gentle, emotional, concerned, conflicted, charming, wise, full of doubt, lovable, bold, steadfast, playful, a good friend. Viggo brought all his charm and loveliness to the movie Aragorn.
"He was king on page one". Not at all for me at the time I read it, I mean long before PJ’s trilogy ever existed. At first read, the revelation of Strider’s true identity and the reforging of his romantic broken sword was impactful, and Aragorn shone in my mind within its contrast with Strider. Without Strider Aragorn surely would have been more bland a character.
Not sure if RoboCop is the best example to put on the screen, considering that through the movie he is rediscovering his humanity and working through the trauma of being killed.
Tolkien was a Christian, and much has been opined about on the allegorical elements of LoTR. That’s to each person opinion I suppose. I myself view Aragorn in an allegorical way however too, as an ideal example of “meekness” that Christ spoke about in the Beattitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5. Meekness being: violent strength and capability kept under control. I.e., strength under control and applied correctly to situation. Aragorn slaughtered orcs. Very good. Aragorn did not slaughter innocent hobbits. Also very good. He is the ideal of the extremely violent yet extremely moral male warrior. A very very good thing for a man to be. Well, that is my opinion, anyway.
Sorry, I don't care if he seems stoic and 'boring', but book Aragorn IS the character. I have to go with the creator's vision; not someone trying to sell movie tickets.
Book Aragorn was way more kingly IMO. But I do understand the changes for the cinema. He's way more flawed and relatable for the general audiences, and that was a gamble that paid off. Book Aragorn is a bit of a superhero, movie Aragorn is a human trying to find himself and has a more difficult hero's journey. That naturally attracted more relatability. Viggo's fantastic acting and physical sacrifices did the rest. Too bad the houses of healing weren't a bit more extended. That'd approach the two characters a bit more. The lack of gondorian, ranger and the sons of Elrond characters also exacerbate the differences quite a bit. On another note, you could totally have been an elf in the movies. A Noldor elf.
Aragorn still had a kingdom to come back too.
Interesting analysis. Must admit I was thinking you would be pointing out the more physical factors like have Jackson insult's Aragorn's intelligence and experience at the last battle at the Morannon Gates. However a very detailed psychological analysis. Book Aragon is definitely a contradiction to the cured Hurin to whom everything goes wrong despite - often because of his attempts to do good.
I would disagree with the idea that Aragorn never shows doubts in the book. Both as others have mentioned his feelings of guilty both at Gandalf's loss and when the fellowship is broken, along with his uncertainty before that as to whether he should go to aid Gondor or go with Frodo into Mordor. Also when he 1st meets Frodo the way he introduces himself expresses a desire to be accepted as he is. Coupled with his doubts over whether he will actually achieve his desired marriage with Arwen. I'm less familiar with movie Aragorn because some of the distortions Jackson put in, which sometimes make no sense or simply cheapen the story means I've never really got as into them as the books. [I 1st met LofR via the excellent radio series in the early 80's which although it left out a fair amount - it was only 13 hours long in total - stayed much truer to the original story.
In terms of masculinity I have mixed feeling. Yes older forms and ideas could be destructive when they led to abuse or arrogance but they also seemed to have more moral depth at times. But then I'm in my mid-60's so that could be a question of a generational difference.
Anyway came to this via your video on Gandalf and look forward to working my way through the rest. Started with this as Aragorn is still my favour character in the story.
Have you seen First Blood? I noticed you had Rambo part 2 as an example of the antithesis, and I'd agree on that, and was just struck by a little curiosity about what you thought about First Blood, since its a very different film.
I was thinking the same thing. First Blood is a fascinating commentary on how American abandoned its veterans to a PTSD riddled existence with no help at all. So... what's the answer? Send him right back of course!
Talk about whiplash! Granted, I do really like the character and the colonel went on to be the inspiration for Colonel Campbell who is one of my favorite guide characters in a video game.
I've never thought about the parallels between aragorn and turin!
Viggo made Aragorn. If you watch the behind the scenes you realize how much he really invested in it. He even broke his toe and kept shooting when he kicked the orc helmet. I read the book first but Viggo is who I picture now as Aragon in the book now.
I understand where you are coming from with movie Aragorn, but I just think the reluctant self-doubting hero aspects were pushed way too much for me. It led to things like Aragorn telling Arwen she should leave for Valinor, and that their love had been just a dream. And the constant declarations that he doesn't want to be king get a bit wearing after a while. As you say, the tough action movie stars from Conan, Die Hard and Rambo had become a bit of a cliche, but the self doubting hero who really doesn't want to be the leader is also rather cliched now as well. I think Jackson could still have depicted Aragorn as a complex personality by showing him gaining confidence in the role he wants as ruler of Gondor and a reformed Arnor, and husband to Arwen. One of the iconic scenes from the book is where Aragorn takes the palantir from Gandalf after Pippin's rashly looks into it. It's dangerous, but Aragorn steps up, and has gained the confidence to know he has both the right and the ability to use it;
*"'Dangerous indeed, but not to all,' said Aragorn. 'There is one who may claim it by right. For this assuredly is the palantír of Orthanc from the treasury of Elendil, set here by the Kings of Gondor. Now my hour draws near. I will take it.'
Gandalf looked at Aragorn, and then, to the surprise of the others, he lifted the covered Stone, and bowed as he presented it.
'Receive it, lord!' he said: 'in earnest of other things that shall be given back. But if I may counsel you in the use of your own, do not use it - yet! Be wary!'
'When have I been hasty or unwary, who have waited and prepared for so many long years?' said Aragorn."*
... and after he has used it
*"Together they went back into the Burg; yet for some time Aragorn sat silent at the table in the hall, and the others waited for him to speak. 'Come!' said Legolas at last.... 'What has happened since we came back to this grim place in the grey morning?'
'A struggle somewhat grimmer for my part than the battle of the Hornburg,' answered Aragorn. 'I have looked in the Stone of Orthanc, my friends.'
'You have looked in that accursed stone of wizardry!' exclaimed Gimli with fear and astonishment in his face. 'Did you say aught to - him? Even Gandalf feared that encounter.'
'You forget to whom you speak,' said Aragorn sternly.... 'Did I not openly proclaim my title before the doors of Edoras? What do you fear that I should say to him? Nay, Gimli,' he said.... [He] looked like one who has laboured in sleepless pain for many nights. 'Nay, my friends, I am the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough - barely.'....
'It was a bitter struggle, and the weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the end I wrenched the Stone to my own will. That alone he will find hard to endure. And he beheld me..., but in other guise than you see me here. If that will aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I deem; for he knew it not till now.... Sauron has not forgotten Isildur and the sword of Elendil. Now in the very hour of his great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed; for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him.'"*
There is a similar scene in the film, showing Aragorn using the stone, but it's rather spoiled by Sauron showing Aragorn the dying (for 'reasons') Arwen. I think the movie rather downplays Aragorn's growing confidence, and that Gandalf acknowledges his right.
primer [PRIM-er] when a text book; primer [PRIME-er] when a coat of paint or explosive
@Jess, I have many, many nits to pick with your analysis. But none of them rise so far as legitimate disagreement. In short, ya done good. Nice vid.
Hey Jess! That green Silmarillion spine behind you is gorgeous. Which edition is that?
You are a very good actor. Surprising, I though you were a scholar. The facial expressions match the word sentiment perfectly.
Aragorn doesn't need to BE relatable. He is a descendant of a people directly blessed by God whose lifespan is measured in centuries. He is in his 80s during the events of the story even though hale and in his prime like a 25 year old would be. He is not a man growing through an arc, he's already a grown ass man with a complete and full life experience already BEHIND him.
Also who would you rather follow to battle and war in real life? Someone confident, competent, and capable in their abilities or someone acting like the lead singer in a EMO band? Which one do you think would keep morale high with the idea one just might possibly make it back home alive?
I love emo guys
Interesting. I was exposed to movie Aragorn first, as a 21 year-old whose identity formation was in the nebulous phase of figuring out what kind of man attracted the kind of women I wanted to appeal to and judging myself against that guy. I had already learned I was the type we used to say was “in touch with his feminine side,” because we hadn’t internalized the social construction of gender yet. I was learning how that was an asset in dating and how it wasn’t.
I was also at a college with a 61/39% female/male split and where the population of non-straight-identifying dudes was anomalously both large in number and (not coincidentally) well-supported.
It was a good environment to have that phase in; it made one of my wants “Don’t be an asshole to women (or anyone else but the context here is my love life, so)”.
Movie Aragorn and his wishy-washy romances made little impression on me in terms of characterological ideals.
But then I met Book Aragorn, and Book Faramir, and found exactly the dude I wanted to be both in a romantic context and as a leader. Someone who could emote without shame, who had little concern for what others considered to be masculine. Whose need for approval stemmed from the drive to ensure that those in their charge were well, not from a vain want to be envied.
Once I saw that the best way to be a valiant man was to be about the business in front of you and don’t concern yourself with the valor of your deeds - to protect your people and encourage them toward their best selves and if someone else gets all the recognition hey, he’s awesome too - it got a lot easier to see myself as a man free of the toxic constraints others in my culture(s) fence themselves in with.
Book Aragorn - Book Dunedain - all day.
Aragorn, and others of the Second Born, have always been my favorite characters.
I hate to be that guy, but I have to defend my boy Rambo. He Definitely cried in First Blood.
How well do you think that Aragorn's full story could work in adaptation, whether as a film (or series of films) or as some form of television series? Should such an adaptation focus on the period starting with "Estel's" coming-of-age through his travels in the distant East and far South? Or should it continue on to the bittersweet end of "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen"?
My own biggest issue with Movie-Aragorn is that I think that Peter Jackson robs the character of much of his motivation for his early journeys and adventures. If he isn't working towards his goal of winning the approval of Elrond for the hand of Arwen then why is he putting himself through so many trials and tribulations over the breadth of Middle-earth?
I prefer the movie Aragorn. But... I do also like the 80s-90s movie heroes. Actually, the first Rambo was more deep story than many would like to admit. I'm not saying those characters were flawless, but I have the impression that now we've gone too far in the opposing direction. The movie Aragorn fits well in the middle. He is concerned about responsibilities and does he is really worthy of the role everyone is putting on him. I don't like in the book Aragorn that he takes his role for granted because he is simply destined to rule. He is meant to be king because of heritage and destiny, and not because of his traits. Don't take me wrong - the book Aragorn still is a positive hero in my eyes. In my view, he (and Arwen) is based on medieval romance (this goes for Luthien and Beren as well), hence he is that knight in shining armour rescuing damsels in distress. And this doesn't bother me too much in the book. Still, I prefer the movie Aragorn because he simply feels more real and likeable, and I do like that simple concept of telling stories: 'from zero to hero'.
I mean trhe book, through a lot changed , like making rambo seem like , sad but not the good guy. It still has the heart of a veteran and the tragedy, who dies.
Until I watched your video, I thought the movie Aragorn a major mistake in an otherwise outstanding adaption of the LOTR-- wonderfully acted but woefully aimless. However, given the context you provide, I better understand, and perhaps appreciate, Jackson and company's motivations. I still prefer book Aragorn, and the long association he had with Gandalf as they struggle to help him regain the throne, but...oh well, wisdom is often wasted on the aged and we need the young to help us better understand the world around us. Another outstanding video, youngster! (I'm old enough to be your great grandfather, LOL.)
Great discussion... you pointed out some things I hadn't seen. Interesting to me is the change from self assured action heroes in the 80s to inner turmoil heroes of the later 90s. This coincides with a transition from the Boomer to the X'er generation as early X'ers become higher up in positions that can influence culture and media. We see the transition in television shows as well. Boomers tended to be driven and stoic where X'ers tended to be searchers and spiritual. Boomers were more concrete and goal oriented in their outlook whereas X'ers tended to be more "What does it all mean?" in their outlook. These are generalities of course... And just my thoughts and musings 😁
Very minor critique here, but to say that action heroes of the 80s and 90s were overly stoic and emotionless isn't entirely accurate. The best example is the climax of First Blood, which shows John Rambo break down and cry at how he feels the world has wronged him. In Terminator, Kyle Reese is fighting against a horrible, lingering dread of what it's like to fight against the machines. Also, there's the scene of him pouring his heart out to Sarah Connor, which is very touching. Likewise, in Terminator 2, the Terminator is shown to actually want to be able to cry. It wants to know what it's like to feel.
10:42 "But that's probably just because of Viggo 😍😍😍"
I prefer Book Aragorn, not for any particularly deep reason, but just because I'm a sucker for an uncomplicated good guy (or rather, to do him, justice, an _apparently_ uncomplicated good guy); I'm the sort of person whose favorite Elven clan is the Vanyar. That said, I've warmed to Movie Aragorn quite a bit, thanks not least to this very video, which cast him in a light I hadn't thought to. When I first saw the films, the treatment of Aragorn, giving him his whole self-doubt arc -- I didn't _dislike_ it, but it did nothing for me. My reaction was just, _I guess they decided he needed an arc because movie; which is, like, fine?_ That reaction gradually progressed from _like, fine?_ to a more definite _yeah, it's fine_ as I came to appreciate film more as a medium, but I still thought of the change to his character as consisting basically in becoming a hero with flaws instead of a paragon -- far less nuanced and contextualized than you've presented here. Thank you!
I do not think Tolkien worked on Turin because he liked him (he did, but this is not as issue here imho) so much because he is interesting but because Tolkien wanted Turin to make sense. Turin is Kullervo forced in a Victorian frame, which he does not fit into, as such there is the need to constantly tweak him, and Kullervo is a simple character who fits his own frame perfectly - just putting him being put into a Victorian moral code makes him problematic... Turin with his Kullervo problems seems an idiot unable to learn or to adjust his behaviour to circumstances, as such one is relieved when he finally kills himself and not so much grieved - that is why he needed constant tweaking...
I love them both. book Aragorn is a role model, someone to be, movie Aragorn is the way that you can still be a person and make it there thank you for this