Aragorn a disgrace to the Kings of Men.

[David D]

Aragorn in the movie is clearly not the kingly, natural born leader that he is in the book. I watched the Fellowship and hoped that as the films progressed he would reveal himself to be Isildur's heir. My hopes came to nothing. Aragorn in the Two Towers falls short of the noble man portrayed in the book.

The first example of his lack of authority is when he encounters Eomer. In the film he meekly metions his heritage and begs for help. In the book he draws himself to his full height and with the majesty befitting a king announces that he is Isildur's heir. I don't have my book at hand for the exact quote, but Eomer jumps back and Legolas looks at him in awe.

Then things get worse when Aragorn gives up his arms without question. Its as if he does not want any confict and is scared to stand up for himself. The same thing occurs when Boromir questions his right to be involved with the ring at Rivendell.

Then the king of men the descendent of Earendil kneels befoe Theoden. Which king in the world would kneel to another. If anything Theoden should kneel before the mightier king Aragorn.

There are many other examples where Aragorn shows a lack of leadership and majesty. He has a greater lineage than anyone in Middle Earth par Elrond and his children yet he goes around in a subdued manner. He never wants in the film reveals his kingly qualities. I understand why Jackson changed Aragorn but I do not think it was beneficial. Aragorn to put it crudely is a wimp, without any noble qualities, deprived of the splendour of a descendent of Luthien. Is anyone else bothered by how greatly altered Aragorn is.

[Lasgalen]

I am bothered by a number of character alterations, but you only mention Aragorn so I will stick to that. He does seem meek and unwilling to behave kingly. He almost sounds apologetic for being Isildur's heir when he talks to Eomer. I am not sure what PJ's intentions are. Maybe he wants Aragorn to make a stunning transformation in the last movie.

As far a kneeling to Theoden. Aragorn has not yet been crowned, and he is in the kingdom of Theoden. I think Aragorn was just showing respect.

[legolaslover]

I must agree that Aragorn lacts something to make him more regal...he still seems to not want to be king...maybe in the second movie...he will rise up when they meet Saruman...if they meet him...oy...

[Beleriel]

I can see what you are saying...

I noticed it most at the Argonath. Oh I so wanted the transformation and authority of him to be shown... although I can see that it would be difficult to do on screen.

You see? Its easier to describe these things in writing than to show them on screen.

Kneeling to Theoden well as has been said I think that was just a mark of respect combined with realising that he had actually physically restrained Theoden at that point... which was REALLY overstepping the mark wasnt it?

The giving up of his arms - well again - in the book he had Anduril at that point, but in the film its just a plain old sword.

I think overall though the portrayal of Aragorn is marvellous. He lived up to my expectations anyway.

But I do take your point. Maybe PJ plans to really contrast him when he comes into his own as King.

Edit: I do think calling him a disgrace is a bit strong though.

I await it with anticipation

[ImDaMom]

Different from the book? Yes. A disgrace- no. In no uncertain terms, the character is in no way disgraced.
Meeting up with Eomer- He was simply trying to get news about the Uruks. In the book, he does act more kingly, but it's all in perception (Legolas actually sees a crown on Aragorn's head)- how does one film anothers perception?
Giving up his arms? Belerial has it right- it's only a sword, not Anduril. In the books he even says he would, if he bore any sword BUT Anduril, so that scene needed to be that way to stick to the book.
Kneeling to Theoden, Berial has that pegged too. I never thought about the fact that Aragorn had just restrained Theoden, and that's a really good point. Also remember-as has been said, Aragorn had not been crowned or even accepted. In the books, he doesn't even enter Gondor, but remains outside, to avoid conflict. It wasn't time yet for him to get all picky about who kneels to whom.

I thought in the 2nd film, he did begin to become more of a leader. Look at Helm's Deep- no one questioned following him, as it became clear that he knew what needed to be done, and how to do it. As far as him being a wimp- what did you want? Schwarzenegger? ("Hasta la vista, orcs" lol) I'm hoping you are using such prejorative comments as "disgrace" to incite discussion, but wimp??? C'mon. By the end of FOTR, we knew Aragorn had something special (remember the "wimpy" battle on Amon Hen? Or the "disgraceful" way he dispached Lurtz? ) By the end of TTT, one knew Aragorn was destined to be a leader, and that kings such as Theoden would even follow him. ("Ride out with me" "Yes. Let this be the moment when we draw swords together!"):king:

[Hobbit]

I have to agree with Beleriel and ImDaMom.
I noticed the lack of authority when first meeting Eomer too, but it didn't really bother me especially since he hasn't got Narsil nor the scabbard of Galadriel. (he hasn't even got his green stone)
In the movie he hasn't got any artifact that could make him look more kingly.
As for bowing before Theoden: mostly the same reason. He's no king then just an advisor and besides even if he was king it wouldn't be part of his kingdom.
And last of all: Isildur and Elendil didn't look too "kingly" in the film either so Aragorn is quite majestic comparred to them.

[David D]

Some people have said that it might be difficult in showing his transformation. I would disagree because, Jackson managed to convey Gandalf the white and grey's hidden power very well. Jackson could have a scene where Legolas would mention to Gimli that he has never met a man like Aragorn before, or that its clear why Sauron fears him. This is done in the book many times and it helps to show how majestic Aragorn is supposed to be. Another scene, which would convey this is if he commanded the Urak Hai to retreat. The Urak Hai would halt at his words, but the gain their composure and attack. Small things like this would be very effective.

Kneeling to another king is something, which is not done. Kneeling to another king is an act of servitude. No matter what the situation a king should always keep his honour. Aragorn never ever denied his right to the throne and showed this by every five seconds repeating his heritage.There is no way that Aragorn of the books would ever have done such an act.

I did not mean he was a wimp when it came to fighting, but more importantly he was too timid to stand up for himself. Boromir makes disparaging about him in Rivendell and he does not answer him. Eomer points a sword at him and he does not reply. In the books as soon as anyone would dare attack his character he would give them a retort; as he does to Boromir, Eomer, Butterbur and even to Pipin.

This weak Aragorn goes all they way bac to the changes hey made to Isildur and Elendil. By stripping Isildur of his greatnest and Elendil of the great act of slaying Sauron, they have left an Aragorn with no pride in his heritage. The Aragorn in the books was a regal, majestic and superior to all those aroundhim. Even in Rivendell I doubt there were many, who could match Aragorn's strength in arms or of will.

Why is the portrayal of Aragorn marvelous, he is now the typica reluctant hero seen in many films rather than the king he was in the book.

[ImDaMom]

Showing the transformation of Gandalf was surprisingly easy, as it was a simple costume change.
There is a line in the TTT previews, which did not show up in the theatrical version of Gandalf saying "Sauron fears YOU, Aragorn..." Will this help your idea of Aragorn being a king?
Boromir's disparaging remark was in the middle of the Council. That was neither the time nor place to get into an arguement with Boromir. Aragorn at that point realized that, if he didn't handle it properly, Boromir would become a powerful enemy, so at that point, descretion was the better part of valor.
When he ordered the Uruks to retreat (book Helms Deep) they laughed at him, too. Does THAT make someone look kingly?
In kneeling to Theoden, remember, that he had not even been introduced to Aragorn at that point. For all Theoden knew, Aragorn was just a man who stopped him from slaying Wormtoungue, and SHOULD kneel.
And yes, he does become a reluctant hero. But, during TTT, he changes from reluctant to powerful warrior, and obvious king. When he first meets Theoden, Theoden does not take his advice. (Bringing back Eomer) By the end, Theoden not only agrees with Aragorn, but is willing to take his leadership to a possible end (Aragorn suggesting they ride out to meet the uruks.)
:king:

[David D]

Gandalf had for more splendour when he faced the balrog and when he confronted Bibo. This was all without change of costume.

The Uruk Haimay have laughed but the wildmen were frigtened by hs words. The fact that he could say that toenemy forces though they felt certain to win and cause them to rethink their situation emphasised his power.

In the book Aragorn has no problem of putting Boromir in his place though it was the council. Aragorn is actually quite quick to anger to everyone apart from Sam. It is important to show his authority from the beginning.

As for when he knelt before Theoden the image he was gving out to the men of Rohan was more important. By kneeling before Theoden he was insulting Gondor. Also am sure that Theoden could tell that Aragorn was not from Rohan. Can you imagine any king of England kneeling before the king of Scotland? Can you imagine the Duke of Edinborough bowing before another king? No, because it is a sign of disrespect to your country.

The fact that he is a reuctant hero destracts from hs character. Aragorn was born to unite the kingdoms. His name was Estel from an early age he was being trained for wen he would be king.

Aragorn is never the obvious king. He fails to convince Theoden to listen to him about Eomer and he does not exactly inspire his men. Aragorn just fails to give me the impression that he is a great king. Rufus Sewel in a 'Knights Tale' does a far better impression of nobility.

[Kenzie]

like imdamom said yes there is a change from the book aragorn and the movie aragorn... but i can see PJ's reasoning.

Aragorn in the movie... though he did bow to theoden...he also stood up to him in a way that none of the others did "open war is upon you whether you will risk it or not" and "they do not wish to destroy your crops" that whole incendent... he did voice is opinion.

[Periantari Andruil]

well wasn't Aragorn more reluctant in the movie to claim his kingship? i remember when he was looking at the Shards of Narsil in Rivendell, he said to Arwen that he had the same blood and feared the same weakness.. and then at the tomb of his mother while talking with Elrond he still showed signs of reluctance...
but i think in TTT movie, he did make strides in showing signs that he was ready to unite the Men of Middle-Earth because he led Rohan into battle in Helm's Deep ... becoming a king with the amount of reluctance that was shown takes time... hopefully in ROTK, he becomes more kingly in your sense of the word.... but i think in the case of the movie, his reluctance in claiming kingship is a reason why he's more... "wimpy"...

[Herefara]

To me Aragorn was the most mis-cast actor. The guy fights and behaves like a little girl. There I said it. And David is right, he could have stepped up the nobel angle a huge amount. Regardless of what PJ's intentions were, Aragorn is the pinnacle of royalty in ME. Show it! :)

[Kenzie]

a huge amount??? though he could have stepped up a little

he fought bravely
stood up to theoden (though he did bow to him... he was not king at the time)
lead the fellowship a great part of the way
though he may not have puffed out his chest at eomer when he encountered them he showed wisdom and reason which is just as important maybe more so

[David D]

Just because you can fight does not mean that you are fit to be king. Orcs are pretty brave when it comes to rushing of to die in battle, but I would not call them noble Anyway his fighting abilites were not of a very high standard. He fell off a cliff and was outshone by Legolas in every conflict.

There is no point in the movie where I think that Aragorn could be the King Elessar. He is very indecisive ad lacks confidence. You say he stands up to Theoden, but when Theoden told him that he was the king he did not push the matter further. The tone of voice he uses is once again lacking authority. There are many occasions where he backs down.

Viggo just has a rather resigned look on his face and is either not incertive enough to play the part or has been purposely told to act in such a manner. His facial expressions are as if he things are doomed and he is tired of his duties. The only time he shows any sort of passion is when he is arguing with Legolas. His voice lacks the richness that is needed for the part of Aragorn. How many times are there in the film where you think that Aragorn has acted inspirational? What part of the movie does he show himself to be an obvious king?

[Beleriel]

I think Aragorn is marvellous because he matches up to my expectations from the book.

To be a King you dont have to be filled with arrogance and pride. Aragorn was NOT full of those things in the book. But you seem to think that is the way he should be.

I think he shows very good diplomatic skills when dealing with Eomer... which are far more important than refusing to kneel to an equal.

His ability to lead people around him is obvious. Legolas takes his lead without question. You can see the concern shown by Theoden when he thinks Aragorn is dead... and he barely KNOWS him at that stage. Aragorn leads the men AND the elves at Helms Deep. Haldir submits to his leadership willingly.

Gandalf also says to him....'they will need you before the end Aragorn' . I think this shows how important he is to the Rohirrim. If not for Aragorn Theoden would have folded and they would never have lasted until the morning.

Aragorn saved the day at Helms Deep.... without his spirit Theoden would never have thought of riding out to meet them.

[Elril Galia]

I think that Aragorns majesty is very subtle in the movies. I think that PJ has brought out more his underlying strenghts as a diplomat in his display of Kingliness.

You have to remember, that a lot of the films are made in the knowledge that the majority who watch them have never read the books. I imagine that PJ is trying to show a subtle change to Aragorn to the ordinary person, so that they experience his change from an ordinary Ranger to a true leader of men in battle and verbal conflict.

I get the feeling that much of Viggos character is in PJs Aragorn.... :-\

[ImDaMom]

Belerial...we agree. There is no wimpiness in the way Aragorn is portrayed. We have to all remember that YOUR Aragorn is not MY Aragorn is not Fatty's ARagorn. What we need to look at is did movie Aragorn live up to leading an army? Yes, in no uncertain terms, whether you liked his voice or not. Did he stand firm against overwhelming odds. Yes, whether it's PJ's Aragorn or Viggos. Did he keep defenses strong, despite massive invasion? Without a doubt, whether you feel he was indecisive or not. I just came from watching TTT again, and was struck by how, when he could have stayed in Rivendell with Arwen, he left to go with Frodo. He fought in Helm's Deep to protect the world of men. If that is not kingly, than what do you want?

[David D]

It is not being a good diplomat to constantly giving in to other people's demands. This is a time of war. You do not have time to give mouth honour. If Aragorn had perhaps been more incertive with plea to go to open war then maybe Theoden would have listened. Instead as soon as it seems that Theoden is getting a bit angry he backs down. Lets say you were an advisor to a general,who was ordering his army to march onto machine gun fire and you asked him not. He however gets a bit angry. Instead of trying to change his mind you decide to avoid a confrontation and let him carry out this stupid idea. Would you consider that being a good diplomat?

Legolas is upset thanone of the Fellowship ha died. He would feel the same about Pipin or Merry. Aragorn may be issuing the commands, but he looks far from comftable. I never get the impression that the men are rallying around him.

I do not think that a king should be arrogant, but they should have a pride. A king is symbol, which a country can rally to when it needs insipartion. A king should have have a presence about them and the ability to command.

I repeat do understand that Jackson is trying to ake the change gradual, but I do not like the idea. Jackson is trying to put the idea across that Aragorn was a regular man, who was reluctant to take the burden, but eventually grew to become a great leader. Classic Hollywood story. The reason I loved the character of Aragorn in the books was that he was born for the day he wold combat Sauron and embraced it. He did what no other man could (partly because of his genes and partly due to his upbringing and united the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor)

[ImDaMom]

A lot of why he goes into the wild in the book has to do with proving himself worthy of Arwen to her daddy. He was content to stay in Imladris until he met Arwen, and Elrond said that only the king of both Gondor and Arnor would be good enough for his little girl. Does that ring kingly to you? That he did it for love? Yes he knew and embraced his destiny, but what would have happened had he not met Arwen that day? He may not have gone off to prove himself, and then we would not have had the books :p Also think of this- when the elves came to Helm's Deep (and let's not get into whether they should have been there or not) Haldir was leading them. As soon as it came to battle, Haldir ceded leadership to Aragorn. Haldir was appointed by Elrond, yet he gave up the role of captain once Aragorn was there. That tells me that Haldir, at least, understood that Aragorn was king, and the ultimate leader. Also, watch the battle of HD someday closely. You consider Theoden to be more kingly..... What did Aragorn do? He got down in the trenches and fought with his men and elves. What did King Theoden do? Watch from above until he had to go fight. I think a true king never asks his men to do what he will not do himself. :king: Aragorn

[David D]

Well Aragorn was not content to remain in Imladris. Even before he met Aragorn he had shown himself to be a remarkable man at the age of 20. He had already at this very young age (especially for somone of his lineage) achieved enought to receieve praise from Elrond.

The love he had for Arwen was a contributing facto, but not the main one. When he went to do his great deeds it as unlikely that Arwen's heart woud b turned to him. Even his own mothersaid he had little chance, buth knew he was the only hope for his people. i do think that if it came to his love for Arwen or the saving of the Numenoreans he would take the same path as Aegnor and sacrifice his prsonal happiness for the the good of his people.

It was the obvious thing for Haldir to give up leadership to Aragorn. He is us some elf where as Aragorn is a descendent of the two most loved eves ever. Haldir repected Aragorn's ancestory , even i he did not and gave the highest ranking person there the authority.

I consider Theoden to be more kingly than Aragorn, but in my opinion thats not hard. The most kingly person would have to be Gandalf. The character of Gandalf in the film is somone, who I think Aragorn of the book is most like. He fights bravely, puts the goal of the destruction of the ring first and shows wisdom . He hides his power like Aragorn does in the books, but when he needs to is not afraid to show it. He is genrally the epitomy of a noble character

[Beleriel]

Instead as soon as it seems that Theoden is getting a bit angry he backs down. Lets say you were an advisor to a general,who was ordering his army to march onto machine gun fire and you asked him not. He however gets a bit angry. Instead of trying to change his mind you decide to avoid a confrontation and let him carry out this stupid idea. Would you consider that being a good diplomat?


That is simply not true. Theoden states the fact! ' When last I looked Theoden was King in Rohan not Aragorn ' Its the truth. Aragorn cannot answer that. At the end of the day, Theoden was responsible for Rohan and no-one could tell him what to do! Including Gandalf.

The idea that Haldir respects the lineage of Aragorn and not the man himself doesnt work either! I mean, in Lothlorien (extended edition) it is Aragorn who persuades Haldir to let the Fellowship continue. Aragorn the man, not his ancestry. and as has been said, he readily gives over leadership to Aragorn in Helms Deep. He accepts orders from HIM, Aragorn the man who is front of his face. It has nothing to do with lineage, in my opinion. His lineage is only ever mentioned between himself and Elrond anyway.

Consider people who havent read the books. I think they will think Aragorn is a GREAT leader of men already. Perhaps at this stage it would be useful if someone who hadnt read the books when they saw the film could tell us their opnion. It would be helpful, I think.

[ImDaMom]

And I think we (non-Aragorn bashers) are all saying the same thing, and that is everything brought up to show how "wimpy" he was simply shows a man respectful of others, and their needs. I'm afraid that putting so much emphasis on things like kneeling before Theoden or not arguing in front of the Council of Elrond really detract from the argument, as they in no way show a "disgraced" Aragorn.

quote: "He hides his power like Aragorn does in the books, but when he needs to is not afraid to show it. He is genrally the epitomy of a noble character"

I agree that Gandalf does exhibit kingly qualities, yet he also backs down in front of Theoden, he gives up his sword at the doors of Meduseld without arguing, he also does not get into arguments with Elrond about men, so how does he avoid your "wimp" label? We have not seen Aragorn display his powers, mainly because he has not had to. Wait till Pelennor Fields or the Paths of the Dead or the Black Gate battles. Then we'll see the "epitome" of a noble character.

[David D]

The use of the word wimp and disgrace were very strong words to stress that I felt he did not measure up o being a king. Its all where and good being respectful of other people's feelings, but there are times when you must asert yourself. Such a time was when he met Eomer. In the books he declares himself openly that as the heir to the throne of Gondor. In the film he gives his name, but misses out that he is Isildur's heir. This is not omitted by accident, but is another piece of evidence to suggest Aragorn still does not want his responsibility. This is not a noble action. George VI had no wish to be king, but he took up his responsibility to the country at the cost of his health.


Like I mentioned before the kneeling thing goes deeper than you think. No king would kneel to another. By Aragorn kneeling to Theoden he is sending message that he does not want to be a king and is prepared to follow another. That is not him being respetful, but attempting to shift his responsibility to Theoden. This is not a good sign of a leader, though to be fair he does take the lead when Theoden proves indequent.

Gandalf has no problems about hurting the feelings of his good friend Bilbo and scaring the living daylights out of him. Gandalf gives up his sword, but keeps his more powerful weapon the staff. Gandalf bares himself as somone full of confidence, whilst Aragorn merely looks weary of his life.

If Aragorn grows into his role reluctantly then to me his character has been deminished fromt the one in the book. Aragorn in the book alway had the hidden power and chose when to unveil it. In the book there is no doubt about him being a great king. Aragorn in the film does not have this hidden power and shows no veiling his authority. Aragorn may grow into a better leader, but at the time in Rohan he seemed there was nothing to destnguish him from other men. What difference is there between Aragorn and Theoden or Eomer? Does Aragorn to you seem nobler than any man alive? I believe that Aragorn has been modernised on purpose to seem less kingly, because Hollywood hates the idea of royalty being superior to the common man.

[ImDaMom]

Royalty is not "superior" to the common man. They are, rather, people who have been born in a superior position- sort of a lucky sperm club. As far as Aragorn showing kingly qualities, what do you call leading elves and men at the battle of Helms Deep? They followed him, without question, without looking to Theoden for permission (I'm thinking of the errant first arrow, when everyone stopped as he yelled "Hold"). Elves, men and one brave dwarf all unfailingly fought with him. It was his choice to ride out at the end, not Theoden's. And then even Theoden followed him, as did the men remaining. I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. Let's hope your rather churlish view of Aragorn improves by the end of ROTK . :king:

[David D]

To be fair the royal families in the past have been suited to ruling their countries. Its not a coincidence that in the time of the Pantagenets the king was the greatest warrior in the country. They were raised from birth to be rulers and with the good genes that they inherited there is a good chance they would be better warrios, have better diplomatic skills and genraly be better suited to leadership than other men. You can not deny the fact that the being raised from a birth to do a job and coming from a family litered with other great leaders, a person is likely to a good leader.

Hollywood loves to promote the idea that anyone can rise up and chieve greatnest. There is reason why William Wallace is no longer a nobleman, but a farmer. There is a reason why in a 'KnightsTale' the hero unrealisticly draws with the Black Prince.

Jackson chose to change the character of Aragorn so he could fit into the typical Hollywood hero mold. By doing this he had to make Aragorn become more flawed and less regal.

Do you think its by chance that in both England and even America most of the reknowned leaders came from families with deep routes in politics ie the Chamberlain's, Rooservalt's, Bush's and the Churchill's.

Having men follow him does not mean he showed any good leadership qualities. Aragorn in the film lacks any passion and he fails to inspire his men. He has an army full of young boys and he does not give one speach to encourage them. In World War II Hitler Britain were being destroyed by a fifth of Hiter's forces, but the people always had good moral due to the actions of the King and Churchill. Untill the elves come there is no evidence of Aragorn rousing his troops.

Our views on Aragorn may differ, but even you have to admit that the Aragorn in the book bears little resemblence to the one of the film.

[ImDaMom]

In the time of the Plantaganets, most noble men were warriors, so by default the king also was. Raising someone from birth to something one is not suited for does not mean automatic success. What better diplomatic skills than acknowledging anothers royalty, while your own is still in question? The Roosevelts are a good example, but there is no reason someone from "outside the beltway" cannot be a great leader (ie Lincoln) Let's not even get into the Bushs. By your reasoning, we would not have had leaders like Washington, LIncoln, Nixon (yes a crook, but a skilled leader), and Al Gore would have been widely elected (we won't get into that, either)What is a leader if not one with the ability to get men to follow him? Whether elves or men, getting someone to risk their lives on your word is leadership. As for not even speaking to the men and boys, what about the heartfelt speech to Haleth? Yes, it was only to one boy, but that's all it takes sometimes. I never said that book Aragorn is the same as movie Aragorn. I watch and enjoy for what he is in either case. I felt book Aragorn was a little proud and haughty at times, and movie Aragorn was not as driven as he might have been. These are all things that may be lost/gained in an adaptation of a book, especially one as detailed as LOTR. I'll be honest- I read LOTR about 15 times before you were born. I'm not saying this to say I know more than you. I will NEVER say I know more than someone else, because there's always more to learn, and other people are our best teachers. I'm saying it to explain why I have such definitive opinions about this. Aragorn has been a fixture in my book reading for so long, and I am so pleased that these movies have captured my imaginary world so beautifully. Yes, there is weakness, (thank you, Boromir) but I don't think it makes the character of Aragorn either a disgrace or a wimp.

[Celebrían]

It seems to me that what one person sees as "wimpy" I see as wisdom. Like the Council scene. I thought Aragorn was the "bigger man" by not responing to Boromir's comment.

...as to kneeling to Theoden, as has been mentioned, he's not king yet, but besides that, I just thought it was respectful of him to do that. I thought it was a nice touch. Theoden is king, Aragorn isn't yet.

[Luvara]

yes, you're right Cel. Aragorn hasn't became king yet, so I think it was very respectful of him! And Theoden didn't know that Aragorn was going to be a king, so he didn't expect anything else.

[David D]

Iam guessing that you are American and yes I may be young, but that does not mean I have not read the books thoroughly.

Its funny that you mention that wth royalty you would be depived of many great presidents. However, the likes of Al Gore, Bush, Jefferson and even Washington were descendents of the Plantagenet kings of England. Its actually quite ironic that even though America is a democracy they still continually elect leaders of royal lineage.

The Plantagenets obviously had a talent in their family for being dynamic leaders and great warriors. Very few of them were not suited to be leaders so with the training they recieve at birth with added to their natural ability, they would likely be better than most.


Elrond is not a king, since his kingdom is destroyed, but can you see him kneeling to Theoden. Can you imagine Galadriel kneeling to Theoden. Acutally how would you feel if Galadriel was to kneel Theoden?

I don' think that Aragorn has any more pide and haughtiness than Gandalf in the books. He also kows when to be diplomatic las shown when he does not enter the city and when to have a more aggressive policy when he swiftly rebukes Boromir and Eomer. The men at helms Deep being attacked by ten thousand orcs had no choice, but to fight to the death. I think a certain amount of pride is needed in a leader. I also believe that the changes in Aragorn were not, because the books were detailed but rather to make a character they thought would be more popular to todays movie audiences.

[Kenzie]

why do you think shes american??? (thats besides the point ... i just want to know)

back to what cele said though elrond may not be a king he still rules a region... Aragorn however does not rule over a region of land when he bows to theoden. when he bows to theoden he is a ranger not a king or at least not yet he isn't.

[David D]

Ok I thought that Imdamom was an American simply because she said 'we would not have leaders like etc'. Since she was mentioning American leaders in such a personal tone I assumed that she was an American. If you add this to such things as her username and a few of her responses ( I hope this does not sound rude) give greater weight to her being American.

Elrond ruling Rivendell is comparable to Aragorn ruling the remnants of Arnor. Rivendell was greatly decreased in glory and power just as Arnor was. Anyway ifyou consider Elrond and Galadriel rulers, how would you feel about seeing Gandalf kneel before Theoden or perhaps an elf lord like Glorifindel?

[ImDaMom]

No, it does not sound rude, but just a tad xenophobic. And yes, I am an American, an Ohioan if you want to know. And I do realize you have read the books deeply, or you would not have such a firm belief of who/what you want Aragorn to be. I always like hearing what other people think of these books, and how every person has their own visions of each character. What I do not agree with is such blanket statements such as "Aragorn was a wimp". As for Gandalf kneeling before Galadriel, as he was her superior (being a Maia, and she only an elf- a high elf, but an elf) no, it would not work. Vice versa, yes. Elrond kneeling to Galadriel? If Elrond could serve as standard bearer (an honorable yet subservient on some level) to Gil Galad, it certainly would not be out of place if he were to kneel in tribute to her. The only reason this would not be appropriate is that she is his mother in law, and I know of NO man who would happily kneel to his mother in law (just a little American humor there )roflmao

[David D]

Like I said before calling Aragorn wimpy was hyperbolic used to stress his indecisive, withdrawn nature. You mention how Gandalf kneeling before Galadriel would not work because he was her superior, well Aragorn was not an equal to Theoden either. Aragorn is from the line of the kings of men. Aragorn's ancestors gave Eorl the land of Rohan. To me Aragorn kneeling to Theoden is comparable to Gandalf kneeling before Denethor.

Elrond was serving his king Gilgalad, which is very different than if he had payed homage to the likes of Thranduril.

Also sorry if my comments seemed xenophobic, I have nothing against Americans, but just feel that the country you live in and the culture you are brought up in sometimes has a slight influence on your attitude.

[ImDaMom]

Originally posted by David D
Also sorry if my comments seemed xenophobic, I have nothing against Americans, but just feel that the country you live in and the culture you are brought up in sometimes has a slight influence on your attitude. [/B]

Everyone's culture influences attitude. That is the nature of a culture. One can never, and should never, deny their culture. I am assuming, of course, that you were not using "you" to refer just to Americans, but using "you" to refer to all people, instead of the more appropriate "one" (as in the country one lives in......") (sorry- that's the teacher in me coming out. It's not only our culture that influences us, but our past and our education ;) )

[David D]

Yes I meant people of all cultures when I said 'you' and I did consider using 'one', but I thought it would sound needlessly high-flown. Yes I agree that a person's past and education has got a lot to with their beliefs..

[Striderfan]

Wow. Your guy's discussions are deep. All I have to say is that Aragorn's apparent "un-knightly-ness" (or as some of you may call his *cring* "wimpy side") that becomes apparent at times throught the movie, enhances the development of his character on the screen. Here's what I mean–the whole point of making a movie of a book is to bring the characters to life, and subsequently "humanize" them to make them relate to and connect with the audience. If aragorn acted the ENTIRE time like he was some stalwart, brave, fearless, knightly, soon-to-be-king, the audience wouldn't be able to relate to him, he would just be a sterotype, a one-sided man. By making him less kingly, and more reluctant in some of his earlier sceens, Aragorn is successfully portrayed as a multi-faceted character with inner conflicts, a real PERSON the common viewer can identify with. Not only does his intermitten bouts of "wimpy-ness" in identifying his kingship show that he, like all humans, struggles with his destiny and fate, but it also contrasts with and shows his evolution to his later exploits in TTT where he becomes a true leader. In my opinion, altering Aragorn's character traits slightly in the first movie was a clever innovation of PJ to make all viewers, wether they had read the book or not, feel for Aragorn, and with me he certainly succeeded. Well, that's just my 2 cents worth, enough thinking for today, I'm gonna go watch some mindless television to clear my brain!! :)
And one more thing: let's keep this discussion to Aragorn and Aragorn's charcter, not Viggo. Viggo did a superbe job.

[Arninquelote]

Aragorn is a king in disguise, masquerading as another until the moment comes when he is free to assume his rightful position. It is therefore not always appropriate that he should reveal his true identity by asserting his authority, as this would broadcast his presence and ultimately imperil the quest to rid ME of the Ring, and the corruption that overshadows it. Despite the fact that he is leading a nomadic life with little hope of fulfilling his destiny, it seems, he is still a leader of men, respected by many, and true to his purpose. In dealing with Eomer, he demonstrates the kind of quiet courtesy that is most associated with the chivalric tradition - the gentile knight of arthurian legend. In addition, Aragorn alone among men has the strength to resist the power of the Ring, and turn aside for the greater good of ME. This surely demonstrates his noblility and heritage, and heralds him as a king among men.

[ImDaMom]

Striderfan...great points. I agree that developing Aragorn's character did indeed make it more interesting. I also like Arnin's views....great debate, guys!! ;)

[Lessa]

Why do you seem to have a fixation with a future King being less than noble if he kneels before a reigning monarch. All heirs to a throne have to kneel before their ruling monarch even when that person is their parent. It doesn't make them any the less noble in fact it shows a courtesy which seems to be lacking in a lot of people in the world today. Btw I am not pointing to anyone just stating a general fact that courtesy and manners seem to be sadly out of fashion at the present time.
I personally think that the paths of the dead will show a distinct change in Aragorn which everyone will notice.

Lessa

[ImDaMom]

I also think that as ROTK runs, we will see a truly kingly Aragorn take his appointed role. Each movie, he has grown a little, and become a better leader. At the end, I have no doubt that he will become a masterful leader of all ME. After all, he did look pretty regal in that death scene in TTT (where Arwen is crying over his tomb)

[Olsonm]

Aragorn is not the King of Gondor (yet) so kneeling before Theoden (a sign of respect, not allegiance) is hardly disrespectful to Gondor. And Aragorn's ancestors did not give Rohan to Eorl. That was done by one of the Stewards.


It is true that Aragorn rejects his heritage in the movie (a very different heritage to that found in the book). But it seems to me that when Aragorn returns from his near death he is far more decisive and willing to identify with the race of men. He is very close to accepting his birthright and will no longer be daunted by his own fear of failing.

[ImDaMom]

olsonm- welcome! :thumbs: I heartily agree with you about Aragorn's acceptance- but I got the feeling he began identitying with men with Boromir's death. His own "death" gave him the determination to succeed. :aragorn:
Just a question, tho- I did not find that his heritage in the film was much different than the book. How did you see that as "very different"?

[David D]

A king kneeling before another king is always a sign of declaring allegience to that king. This is not a courteous thing to do. In Europen culture as soon as you kneel before another soveriegn you are declaring him as your lord. . It is something that is just not done. The Queen does not go around kneeling to other monarchs and no respectable monarch ever should. It is courteous enough to refer to another monarch as a lord or lady.

As for the heir kneeling before the king, thats because the king is above him in the chain of being and as long as the king lives the prince is his subject.. Aragorn may not have been a king, but he was still a leader of men and heir to the throne and should never have knelt to another monarch.

I do believe as well that Aragorn will in Return of the King be far more kingly than he was previously and he would his confidence would have grown. This is very much a typical hollywood hero where the 'hero' is given faults to make him resemble the audience more. Tolkien intended for Aragorn to be greater than the average man he was not somone we could identify with ( the hobbits are that), but someone of great charactr, who we could try to emulate.

[Olsonm]

Originally posted by ImDaMom
Just a question, tho- I did not find that his heritage in the film was much different than the book. How did you see that as "very different"? His heritage in the movie is only what we see in the prologue of FOTR. The movie strongly implies that Isildur's choice is what ended the line of kings. No mention is made of Arnor. I thought it was a clever bit of simplification but it is different from the book.



I don't see what European politics has to do with the movie. Aragorn is clearly kneeling out of respect and not declaring allegiance.

[ImDaMom]

I think you're right- it's purely simplification. We do, however, get a little bit more of the heritage in the scene when Aragorn and Arwen discuss his fear -"The same blood flows in my veins". HOpefully, with ROTK when he gets Anduril, we'll get even a bit more. I don't think, tho, we'll hear about Arnor at all. It's really not necessary (but a great part of the tale, imho)

And I also agree that the kneeling is out of respect, not allegiance. But I also think that we've all gotten too involved with a movie when we worry about whether a character should kneel or not lol lol LOTR anonymous, anyone????

[Olsonm]

Originally posted by ImDaMom
I think you're right- it's purely simplification. We do, however, get a little bit more of the heritage in the scene when Aragorn and Arwen discuss his fear -"The same blood flows in my veins". HOpefully, with ROTK when he gets Anduril, we'll get even a bit more. I don't think, tho, we'll hear about Arnor at all. It's really not necessary (but a great part of the tale, imho) The; "The same blood flows in my veins.", comment merely ties Aragorn to the prologue. (they even have the picture of Isildur and Sauron behind them in the scene!). The only additional info we might get in ROTK is something about how the Stewards came to power. Oh, I forgot to thank you for welcoming me ImDaMom. :thumbs:

[Hobbit]

Are we still discussing the kneeling thing :o
I think it's just out of respect. I mean Aragorn didn't even introduced himself to Theoden yet and then when the King wanted to kill Grima, he suddenly jumps forward, nearly makes Theoden fall, nearly seizes Theoden's sword, and then he commands Theoden to let Grima live while the only king there (Theoden) already made his dicision about killing Grima. That is a serious insult to Theoden for Aragorn openly takes matters into his own hands and ignores Rohan laws. If he was any other man Theoden would probably have locked him up, but Aragorn got away with that for already then Theoden saw something special in him eventhough he was dressed like a mere ranger. And then Aragorn kneeles before Theoden, to show that he respects Theoden as King of Rohan and that he respects Rohan. If you see the kneeling as an insult for Gondor then Aragorn's action before that must have been a bigger insult becouse that would tell that Gondor doens't respect Rohan. BTW he does look royal and nobel when he orders Theoden to save Grima. There was no doubt about it then that Aragorn was more important.
And RotK is definatly going to show us more of Aragorn's nobel, kingly side he already showed a couple oof times before.

[ImDaMom]

Thank you, Hobbit....a truly well phrased defence of Aragorn :aragorn:

[LoveroftheShire]

Boromir is the Warrior and heir to the Stewardship of Gondor. With a sure knowledge of his destiny and enough pride and firey arrogance to believe he could take the ring and use it for his own purpose.
How do you seperate one heir from the other?

Aragorn also a Warrior and heir to Gondor is defined from Boromir because of what I would define as his humility . I think this is the word I would use rather then 'wimp'.
"I do not want that power, I have never wanted it!"
Because he does not seek power, does this make him a wimp?? I wouldn't have thought so. Because he didn't seek it, he was able to reject the temptation of the ring. And also probably becomes the one individual most apt to rule over others.

In the Fotr I see movie Aragorn as in the character from the book, starting out with his fair share of self doublt also, so I don't see how that differs all that much.
He doesn't step away from leadership, but he does question his ability to be the right kind of leader I think.
Btw, I think Aragorn introduces himself as Strider to Eomer.

Perhapes Aragorn has offered his allegiance to Theoden, certainly he gives him honour.. But this isn't King Elessar thats offered allegance, this is Aragorn the Ranger, in his own eyes. A man without a kingdom, but willing to do all he can to help save a people.

I think Aragorn is doing pretty good coming into his own. But thats just MHO. :)

[Lessa]

Sometimes the best leaders are those who don't actively seek power but are inately suited to the job. They are born leaders and others instinctively follow their lead and so confer the power on them. I think Aragorn is such a man despite his birthright claim to Gondor people follow him instinctively and not because they have to.

Lessa

[Ereinion]

There's something I've been thinking about for quite some time... When Aragorn and Theoden were prepering for combat in Helm's Deep, Aragorn suggested to him to "send out riders"... One of his "brilliant" idea was that "Gondor will answer"...That statement shocked me completly! :o Is he that stupid? Gondorian soldiers will come to Rohan when they can hardly have the menpower to defend their own borders? Did he not spend months with Boromir? Does he not know what's happening in the ME? Does he think he's the only one who's fighting?
Offcourse I could be wrong, because the movie took the storie in a completly different direction, otherwise there would be no Elfs appearing in HD, they would be fighting in Lorien....

[Lessa]

No I think he was relying on the mutual defence pact Rohan and Gondor had. Besides the more Riders left standing after Helm's Deep the more there will be to help with the defence of Gondor and consequently the free world.

Lessa

[Ereinion]

But how could Gondor spare soldiers, and more importantly,arrive on time?

[Lessa]

True they could only have sent a token force but something like that helps moral and lets the people know they have not been forgotten.
The sending of riders also serves to let allies ie:Gondor know that expected troops from Rohan may be a little later than first thought but that they'll get there if and when they can.

Lessa

[Ereinion]

I don't know....Maybe you're right....I just don't like this movie consept... Makes me think of bigger and more important changes to be made in the ROTK....

[Lessa]

Well we will just have to wait and see.

Lessa

[Elendur]

discussion a lot.. sorry for being a bit late to add my penny's worth!!
There were some parts of the character development of Aragorn that I was a little upset with, but have felt that overall his character has developed well as the films have progressed.
I was more upset at the lack of mention of the monumental pursuit undertaken by Aragorn,Legolas and Gimli, rather than any perceived weakness in Aragorn's character. I think that any "king" travelling on foot with only two companions would be best served with a little forebearance when surprising a heavily armed force who have no clue as to his identity and a lot of mistrust for any strangers in their land at that time.
The point is well made that at this time Aragorn IS NOT yet a king .. yes he has the lineage and yes the lawful right , but I am not sure yet that he has finally made up his own mind to rule, and there are those in Gondor (Denathor) who would definately not support his claim to the throne. He is after all heir to the lost kingdom of Arnor, leader of a remnant of a displaced people, and only through blood ties a claimant to the throne of Gondor. He would still have to have his claim upheld by the very people he would set out to rule. This was a time when all men needed to stay together in order to survive, not a time for prima donna's and ego's to drive wedges in-between what little strength they had left.
Aragorn is not yet king, and he has SERVED both Denethor's father in Gondor and Theoden's father in Rohan at different times in his life. He has disguised his lineage then and I am sure had to take an oath of fealty at these times. His knowing how to subborn his own ultimate ego and dignity for the good of Middle Earth as a whole, speaks more to me of his nobility and honor than of demanding the position that his lineage should command.

It is correct to say that the films are not the books.. but an interpretation. They will never be as good as the books as it is impossible to convey all that is contained there in such a short space of time.
There will obviously be changes to gear characters to be more empathetic to certain audiences. Aragorn could have done some things differently, I would have liked to see some things done differently, but in my opinion he has been played brilliantly by Viggo Mortensen within the constraints placed upon the film by time, money and business interests.

This is my take on Aragorn .. thanks for reading!;)

[Lessa]

Yes I agree with you about Aragorn. He was a natural born leader who always commanded the respect of those who knew him. You only have to look at the short amount of time it took the hobbits to go from total distrust to liking and respecting him both as a man and as a leader.
He was a gentleman who was ruthless when required but for the most part was a gentle person with an innate dignity and didn't like to strut around showing off his power. The very best type of leader to have for any group of people of nation in my humble opinion.

Lessa

[Evenstar]

I never noticed Aragorn as being a wimp. Like Lessa, I thought he seemed a born leader. :king:

Kings should not be dictators, going round full of pride and bossing their people about. When Aragorn knelt to Theoden, like lots of people have already said, he was not king yet, and he was in Theoden's realm. Also, he had just stopped the king from killing Wormtongue, something Theoden probably wasn't too happy about.

I expect Viggo could have played Aragorn a little better, but I thought it was fine the way :aragorn: has been for the last two films.
As for Faramir... pfbbt lol

[Aragorn's Hope]

Aragorn is a man I would follow without question. Even though he seems so scared and in doubt of "Being who he was born to be" Does not make him wimpy, my friends if anything it shows how strong he truely is. :cool: