The Character of ARAGORN Changes! | Book vs Movie Differences | Middle Earth Lore
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 01. 2022
- Happy New Year everybody!! Today we kick off 2022 by looking at everyone's favourite ranger, Aragorn, son of Arathorn! We will be look at his character from the original Tolkien books of he Lord of the Rings and comparing him to the Aragorn we were given, portrayed by Viggo Mortenson in the Peter Jackson adaptations with his movie trilogy!
I hope you enjoy!
-----
Also check out our other channels!
The Tabletop Alliance -
/ thetabletopalliance
The 6th Ranger -
/ @the6thranger
History of Dragon Ball -
/ @historyofdragonball
-----
Don't forget to check out our Official website!
www.thebrokensword.co.uk
If you want to support the channel, you can help us via Patreon. There are different tier options from only $2 which can get you everything from shoutouts, discounts, access to original artwork, producer credits on productions and more!
/ thebrokensword
-----
Also if you want to support in a different way then check out our Teespring page for original designs for our merch!
www.teespring.com/stores/hist...
Social media links -
Facebook - / thebrokenswordyoutube
Twitter - / thebroken_sword
Instagram - / thebroken_sword
----------
Please consider subscribing to the channel for all future updates based on the Lord of the Rings!
Any future news and updates regarding the show or anything else, we will be sure to let you guys know ASAP!
Also, if you have any suggestions for future videos too, then please leave a comment below!
----------
We do not claim to own the rights to any of the art work used throughout this video. All credit must go to the talented artists. If we have not credited an artist, it is because we could not find an owner of the art. Please message us if we have not credited you!
If any artists would like us to remove their artwork, or add anything additional to credit you, please contact us and we will sort it straight away! Thank you!
CK Goksoy - www.artstation.com/ckgoksoy
Ivan Cavini - www.ivancavini.com
Ted Nasmith - www.tednasmith.com
Peter Xavier Price - www.deviantart.com/peet
Magali Villeneuve - www.magali-villeneuve.com
KipRasmussen - www.deviantart.com/kiprasmussen
RalphDamiani - www.deviantart.com/ralphdamiani
Matthew Stewart - www.matthew-stewart.com/middle...
Anato Finnstark - www.artstation.com/anto-finns...
Thumbnail Art:
"Aragorn" - Feyjane / "Viggo Mortenson - The Lord of the Rings"
"Aragorn" - fromKITnoc
Art in order of first apperance:
Aragorn - Mitheriel
The Lord of the Rings The FEllowship of the Ring (2001) - New Line Cinema
Aragorn - Imad Awan
Aragorn, son of Arathorn - Shishkina
Viggo Mortensen LOTR BTS
Strider - CKGokso
Strider (Lord of the Rings) - GiovaBellofatto
Strider at Bree - joaoMachay
The Lord of the Ring - Aragorn - p1xer
Aragorn - Firatcan Yakut
Aragorn and Arwen - Ainhoa del Valle
Galadriel and Aragorn - DonatoArts
Evenstar - LiigaKlavina
Aragorn - fromKITnoc
Aragorn and Arwen - Ekukanova
Aragorn the Ranger - Adam Middleton
Aragorn - Benjamin Goutte
Aragorn II Elessar Telcontar - Jusaaa Zerochan
The Hunt Begins - (Artist Unknown)
Sons of Elrond - BenNewton
Thus Came Aragorn - Ted Nasmith
Aragorn - Dave Seguin
Aragorn - Jerry Vanderstelt
Aragorn - kimberly80
Arwen and Aragorn, the Youth - SaMo-art
Aragorn - LotsOfLowe
Aragorn - Stephanie Pepper
The Lord of the Rings The return of the king (2003) - New Line Cinema
Aragorn & Palantir - Magali Villeneuve
Elessar - John Howe
Aragorn and Arwen Wedding - Ivan Cavini
Battle of the Black Gate - Ted Nasmith
Aragorn - akreon
Aragorn-Legolas - cpn-blowfish
Aragorn - kimberly80
Aragorn - AUDEAMUS-019
Aragorn the King - (Artist Unknown)
Aragorn - Qinni
The Lord of the Rings The two towers (2002) - New Line Cinema
Middle Earth - Klaradox
----------
All content falls under fair use: any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.
In the event I use art of yours or you have any questions, please contact me and we'll get it sorted straight away! :)
.
.
.
#LordoftheRingsLore #Aragorn #AragornLordoftheRings - Zábava
Happy New Year everyone!
And remember to raise a toast in the memory of JRR Tolkien on his birthday today 🥂🍻
3-D fliers against qr, passports, FOR GONDOR
history is recorded
Happy New Year!!! And good stuff mate.
As much as I like the book version of Aragorn, in the end, the changes were made to fit the medium of the story (book vs cinema).... If you were to make a true rendition of the book, it would equate to 100s of hours and cost billions of dollars. The cinematic rendition followed the reluctant hero mode - something that people can easily recognize, get behind and follow the character arc through the trilogy.
@@JayDubWilly whut? some of us just love.
i wonder who is the winner of the giveway did you choose anyone yet if yes please tell me where i can see who you chose if not tell us as soon as you know love your vids
I had never believed anyone would be able to adapt the books to the screen. I have read the books more than once and, to me, there was far to much going on to make it work. Wrong there. I was very dubious when I went to see the The Fellowship and was totally blown away. It was very well done. Having said that I still prefer the books. Aragorn was a "kingly" figure coming out of the shadows to claim his birthright. And so on. Aragorn in the movie showed us man behind the warrior and king. He is more relatable from by perspective.
The movies were an excellent adaptation of the books. After watching the extended versions I can even see why Jackson deleted the deleted scenes. One of only a few critiques I have of the movies is the evilness was too evil... if that makes any sense. Like, every single evil creature, evil tower, evil location was black lol. Clothes were basically all black, stones and structures were black, food and drink were black or virtually colorless, weapons and armor were black or very dark grey, skies were black, bridges were black... you get the idea. When I read the books, I did image some color in places that made sense. It was "too much evilness." It got a little tiring by the third movie.
@@AudraT Lol. I never even noticed. I was all caught up in the story.
I wouldn't say Book Aragorn never had doubts. He doubted himself quite a lot after Gandalf fell in Moria. He just didn't have time to dwell on it after the breaking of the Fellowship.
Of course he has worries about the Fellowship and Frodo, but he never doubted his right and willingness to the throne.
@@helenwhs That's why Book Aragorn is better.
Agreed
I do find Aragorn a more relatable figure in the movie (maybe because I'm a movie kid too lol), but primarily because I see movie Aragorn as a figure caught between two worlds: being human but being raised in Rivendell makes him human by blood but Elvish by upbringing, and with movie Elrond being his foster father he's very sceptical of humans and humanity as seen by his interactions with Boromir who is out, loud, and proud to be human. By the end of FOTR Aragorn is starting to embrace his humanity after Boromir's death, but in TTT when Haldir shows at Helm's Deep Aragorn chooses to fight alongside the Elves on the Deeping Wall rather than with the men of Rohan and is forced to take shelter in the Hornburg with his fellow humans where he chooses to finally fight with them at the end. Finally by ROTK Aragorn is fully embracing both sides of his identity (human and Elvish) at the Black Gate where he calls the men of Gondor and Rohan his brothers, and firmly taking that mantle of leadership, and it's a completed Aragorn who gains both the crown and Arwen.
As an aside, I do think that Aragorn's connection with animals (horses in particular) rather than Legolas in the film is more due to Viggo Mortensen being a more natural horseman than Orlando Bloom. One can't ignore the influence from their own personalities that actors can bring to a character.
well said
I think Viggo bought his horse at the the end if the trilogy. Kind of fitting.
You're describing the "reluctant hero" trope, which is something that is EXTREMELY common in American blockbusters. This is not groundbreaking storytelling from Peter Jackson. It's him using modern storytelling techniques on a story that isn't meant to feel modern. It's not something that should have been applied to a character who is meant to feel like he's ripped from medieval legend.
Nah he’s not elven though he has no elven side he’s man. He grew up with elves and speaks sindarin but that’s it he ain’t no elf nor has an elf side. Poor kid that he has with Arwen cuz the kid would be a human with elf mother rather than if Aragorn was an elf he’d be elven with human mother
My son thinks that we see Aragorn earn the right to be the king, achieved the throne in the movie; not just given. I think the movie (Vigo M in particular) demonstrated meekness, humility and willingness to strive with them; not just be served and becoming what he was born to be, not just automatically given, which is an awesome quality for a King.
He doesn't have to earn the right. He IS the heir of Elendil. Period.
But in the book aragon def earned everything he got. He really was strider. Went to places no other human or elf ever. He was a captain gondor, winning many battles land and sea. He had to leave cause father of boromir was jealous. He was known east to west north to south. He even lived for awhile in harad
What Martin said. Aragorn didn't expect served on a silver platter, he spent 67 years striving to counter Sauron and sacrificially serving his subjects long ere they were truly his subjects, and when he did get the kingship, served in honor and accepted in humility. All the positive things you ascribe to movie Aragorn, and more besides.
Funny how he barely showed qualities of a king in the movies.
He doesn't have to earn anything. It's his birthright. He's the heir of Isildur!!!
The books vs the movies are two different experiences. I like them both, so it's hard for me to pit one against the other. I guess I prefer the extra detail from the books that they simply couldn't accomplish on film, but after seeing the films, when I read the book, those characters from the film are the images in my minds eye while reading.
I like book Aragorn better but love both characters. Book Aragorn is a more confident, powerful leader compared to the movie where he's a shown to be a very compassionate leader (obviously not a bad thing).
I'd also always figured the animal empathy shown in the movies was meant to be an extra nod towards him being a ranger
I hate it when Aragorn beheads the Mouth of Sauron in the extended edition.
@@reek4062 how come?? (Have not read the books yet)
Same for me James. These movies changed my life and there is nothing about them I can hate.
Of course every Tolkien fan wants to see a 20+ hour long word-for-word faithful adaptation but that's pretty much impossible. I believe that the movies are the best adaptation of the books that could possibly have been made.
100% Agree :D
💯
I definitely think so. People forget that sometimes when things happen exactly according to the book, it doesn’t make for a very good cinematic experience. The mediums are just different and that’s okay
I agree. Because of the different mediums, it's hard to translate that.
That said the original trilogy will always have a special place in my heart.
If there's only one thing I could change it would be the dead army at plennor/minis tirith
@@scarysunburns7733 that’s pretty much what Peter Jackson said in his makings of videos, the book dialog and story line didn’t necessarily flow well on screen and he would do an almost daily rewrite to work it so it would flow better.
Happy birthday Jrr tolkien!
Easily this will be the most liked comment.
He's been reunited with his Lúthien Tinúviel.
The book character is my vote. I always felt the movie version was too heavy and even depressed at times.
I like both versions a lot, but the books are always better in my opinion! I don't see the need for him to be made a reluctant hero, when we had the hobbits to do that. His character in the books makes him seem like "a king of old" and makes him truly seem fit for his role as king. Although I do still like the movies!
Yes. A king of old indeed.
I love the movies...but not nearly as much as the books. Aragorn's portrayal is one of the reasons. I believe his book character was a strong leader but in no way was it overbearing. On the contrary, he took subservient through much of the book putting the mission of the greater good (destruction of the ring) ahead of his own desires. There were many times where he was strong but unsure such as the trip from Bree to Rivendale. As a matter of fact I believe that it wasn't until the breakup of the ring fellowship and the subsequent search for Merry and Pippin that we get a true hint of his power.
As much as I like the movies I do wish they would've been more true to some of the characters. I also would've like to see Tom Bombadill.
Movie Aragorn still seemed like a pretty strong character, even with his doubts and, I agree, book Aragorn had his doubts, his humility, and he didn't come across as overbearing. I thought, even with the changes, the two characters were still pretty darn close to each other.
One thing that could explain movie vs book Aragorn is Peter Jackson sometimes has a shallow view of LOTR myth and legend. I feel like Jackson doesn't see the deeper meaning or an allegory. The way Aragorn struggled when he confronted eyeball Sauron in the Palantar or the way Faramir was so easily overtaken by the temptations of the ring. I know Jackson said that if the ring is supposed to be so powerful and seductive, how would Faramir have been able to resist the ring so well. What Jackson didn't understand was it wasn't just the ring, but what was inside the heart of the man, that determined whether the man would succumb to the temptations of the ring. I can also imagine the same line of thinking when Aragorn confronted eyeball Sauron.
Also, Jackson denied that there was any Christian symbolism in LOTR or middle earth because "there weren't any churches in middle-earth." My goodness! The symbolism is so apparent.
Agreed! Also wish the movies included the Grey Company as well.
Thankyou Tolkien for writing your world to the world..May your stories filled with rich descriptions ,of metaphores full of starry nights, poems clothed in real experiences and emotions, secrets left to be interpretated by each reader locked in enigmatic forests and grander meanings within each character live on for generations to come..🧚🏻♀️✨✨✨
I agree about the scene with the Palantir, I liked the book scene better. That Sauron was unsure if Aragorn had the Ring and made the mistake of rushing into battle. I wish they would have conveyed that better in the movies (which I adore anyway).
Movie version Aragorn is my favorite character , after reading the books, I hands down preferred the movie version, all the doubt and the weaknesses aragorn faces is what makes me love the character so much, the book version isn't someone I can relate to as much as movie version perhaps. Quote stolen from Harry Potter but.." sometimes those best suited for power are those who do not seek it" . Anyways great vid guys!
You know, as a women who loves the knight-in-shining-armor thing, I loved book Aragorn! I also really loved movie Aragorn too and I still think the two Aragorns are very similar. Movie Aragorn also totally had the knight-in-shining-armor thing too.
@@AudraT that's very fair, all in all, I'm happy to have both, both are great
You don't NEED to "relate" to him. He's from the royal bloodline of a people that were DIRECTLY blessed by God (Eru Iluvatar) himself. How COULD you relate to that. Hell even look at real life people. Can you honestly relate to someone of the likes of Sergeant York, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, ect? You can't relate to everybody. Some people are just above and beyond.
@@waynepurcell6058 Get your point, only saying I like him more cause I relate more, dont tend to get into something I can't fully get behind. Not that he's better or anything, just preferred that version
@@waynepurcell6058That's a spectacular misunderstanding of what means to feel inspired by role models, even when they are fictitious.
I don't need to look like a character, to have as much money as him, to be as skilled or smart as him, or to be of royal blood as him, to feel I can relate to him.
That doesn't mean that I can't learn from the same lessons they do, or that I can't commit to my own goals with the same persevering atitude, or display the same values as they do.
These characters are meant to be dramatic representations of pure, uncompromised concepts which we are compelled to incorporate into our daily lives in a meaningful manner. And we are all the main characters in our lives.
I don't have to possess the same features of a 6 feet 3 kryptonian, a 6 feet 6 Dunedain with a Royal sword, an American billionaire with an electro-mechanical exo-skeleton, a 4 feet fat hobbit, a blonde kid from Tatooine who receives his fallen father's lightsaber, or a thousand-year Istari with a Grey pointy hat to feel close to their causes, their regrets, their mistakes, their hopes and their triumphs.
I read all the books and watched all the animated movies while growing up. I really appreciated the movies along with watching all the appendices on DVD. What a true undertaking it was.
Aragorn in the book does have self doubt. We do hear it specifically when the fellwoship breaks apart he says he only made bad decisions. He also worries about what would happen if his dreams / hopes would not come true.
I do not see it as two different characters but as one thing taken and blown up / focused on. Yes, Book-Aragorn was more of a leader and it was more belivable for him to become king. He especially talks about preparing for years in secret.
In my head that strength is within movie-Aragorn but as the time has come where he either fails or succeeds the doubts Book-Aragorn has in check are coming to the surface.
So personally I see it as a different take on one character. Like the Doctor is still the Doctor after regeneration but also very different.
The book version of Aragon is always gonna be optimal/better but as an adaptation of the book the movie fits the "Hero" just right...I do wish Glorfindel was in the film tho 😁
I actually loved the !movie Aragorn than on what's on the book about Aragorn. His performance on the movie just represents a relatable figure who does not seek power.
So glad PJ made him like this.
Obviously they went with a different take for movie Aragorn, but I don't think they're quite as different as alot of people seem to think, but the focus is definitely on different aspects of his character
I think thats a pretty good description.
Agree! Book Aragorn was often consumed by self-blame and guilt, times when his confidence seemed to waiver and he was more human. The movies ran with this a bit more.
@@AllovimoExactly lol he ends the first book and starts book two with an existential crisis lol, also movie Aragorn (who is supposedly Less of a strong leader) is the one to suggest the final charge at helms deep. Tho in the books they give him that epic speech where he tells sarumans army it's their last chance to f**k off lol
It's a nice balance, but there's definitely the fact that both Aragorns play to the general consensus of heroism of their respective times and audiences
Interesting point about legolas and the animal connection tho
Exactly.
Book aragorn wasn't a beta. He was a badass from the start. He carried the broken shards the whole time and he wanted them reforged and wanted to unite men. Way too reluctant in the movie. The rohirrim scene perfect example.
Happy Birthday John Ronald Reuel Tolkien! Your art is a very beautiful part of this world and I thank you for sharing it.
Thank you so much 😀
I believe a quote from Shakespeare's, 12th Night also sums up Aragorn to a fair degree.
"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em."
The thing is that the whole look in the palantin and showing Aragorns greatness dissapears in the book, because the reason that Sauron is getting affraid and sends his troops is because he thinks that Aragorn has the ring. But PJ kinda screwed that with the sceen where Frodo was in Osciliath and more or less showing the ring to the witch king. And that the witch king was so stupid that he didnt react like 2-3 days later when he smelled the ring on his way out to attack osciliath is wierd. It is stuff like that when people makes changes they dont fully think realistic and stuff like that ruining the movie for me atleast.
Should have kept Glorfindel, at least in the extended edition
Yeah he is probably my favorite elf. I think they excluded him and Tom Bombadil because they were so powerful yet underutilized in the overall plot so it would make some loose ends. Hopefully someday we will see him in some other Tolkien adaptation from the first age
Very nice recap. To answer your question I have to say that the books are far better than the movies, compacting doesn't mean changing, and Jackson & Co. changed so much of the story that he and Boyens claimed to have "made a better story." I have stepped into piles of stuff in my yard that do not smell that bad. Tolkien is a writer, creator and story teller, Jackson changes what exists, and has hundreds of people at his mercy, if they want a paycheck, to make his 'dream' come true. Two weeks ago I watched the movies, I should say I watched through them, for the last time and will now get back on my schedule of reading the books every few years, and just to get those movies (the Hobbit!??! Seriously??) out of my mind I think I'll read them twice this year or at least by next spring. And a great New Year to you, as well.
Happy New Year, now with that being said I'd like to say I love the movie version. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the book version. I think that even though he was the reluctant hero in the movies, in each one there were instances of him being that strong leader and warrior as you read about in the book. The gradual buildup of him fully embracing his destiny is fantastic and adds much more depth and is more relatable to the average person. As a side note as a former Marine I can sympathize with him in a way and can kinda see things as he does. Thanks for the great video and look forward to many more!
I literally wrote a research paper on the book-movie comparison of Aragorn in school almost 2 years ago... xD It was really interesting to see this video and to hear your comparison.
Glad you enjoyed it :D
Viggo Mortensen did such a wonderful job I have no complaints about the character changes… now Frodo is the one character that was absolutely done a disservice by the movies
I'd argue Pippin kinda gets some disservice as well. He's much more clever in the books.
I agree with Viggo
And Denethor.
Frodo, Denethor, Treebeard, Faramir, Aragorn....they all get a very poor portrayal in the movies IMHO.
@@TheMarcHicks
Indeed that is in the books, faramir was one of the few who resisted the one ring.
In someways more numenorian than boromir akin to the faithful of the past...
Been waiting for this for a long time. Love your guys quality work! ❤️
Thank you very much!
They both work what their media but I love the books more. I love the depth of the books
Happy new year and thank you guys for everything you do much love and support 💚💚💚
Thank you for your videos you two. Love them a lot!
Happy New Year
I believe both versions work for their own mediums, but I prefer the movie version more.
Love them both! Happy New Years! Love the channel and keep up the great work!
Both versions work because they both hit their target audience on the head. The movie is fantastic and puts the story on film while the book fills our individual minds with fantastic ideas that to let's be honest can't be completed.
I didn’t like the whole part about his love for Arwen weighing him down and that his love for Arwen trumps everything else. Horrible! I can live with the other changes in the movies, although I would rather have the book portrayal.
I love both versions, just can't help it.
Nice video❤.
really cool vid James enjoyed looking forward to the next vid as i always do I think both do character justice
Thank you!
Hey I really liked the video! Would you consider doing some with more details, highlighting more examples of how things were shown differently? I would love to see one from Gimli and Sam, since I feel like those two were the ones that suffered the most.
GAAAAAHHH!! Movie Aragorn is so wishy-washy! He’s too full of angst and he even led on Éowyn! PJ said that he was going to be true to the books, but he wasn’t. 😾😾😾 PJ took too many liberties with Aragorn’s character, to the point that I felt like I was watching fan fiction. Bad fan fiction at that. So yeah, it’s pretty obvious that I much prefer noble book Aragorn, who knew that he had a big task ahead of him, but he was going to die doing it, if need be. He felt that it was his duty to right the wrongs done by Isildur’s decision to keep The One Ring, since he was Isildur’s heir. And he knew that he needed to claim the kingship so that he could marry his true love, Arwen. ✌🏼💖
P.S. -I wish Denis Villeneuve had directed the movies instead of PJ. DV would have respected the books.
I thought that they were great. I would like to see a blend of them. Each has such. Strong emotion in their own paths.
Thank you
I enjoyed the movies , but as has been said there were many instances where they didn't reflect the story or the characters from the book .This is particularly true of Aragorn , who is a much more subtle and deeper character in the book .The BBC Radio version of LOTR from the 1980s has a much more accurate portrayal of Aragorn .But I fully understand the challenges of adapting such a complex work to screen .One of the best books about the works of Tolkien is " Master Of Middle Earth " by Paul Kocher .As well as an excellent analysis of The LOTR , it has a brilliant chapter on Aragorn .Well worth seeking out !
Your describtion of the book character makes more sense due to how events play out. Gotta read it again some day (year).
Please make a video of the stone giants I have seen in The Hobbit so I can get more perspective on it I don't hear of them as much it would make my day
Movie Mouth of Sauron was just so much cooler than the book version. John Jude Palencar's design adds a lot to the character
If I remember correctly, his description in the books is a bit vague but I'm a little disappointed that they didnt utilize the description of the horse he was on. In the books it was ghoulish and beast like. Unlike a normal horse
LOVE YOUR STUFF GREATINGS FROM GERMANY
Happy late New Year.
My first experience with Tolkien was the Ralph Bakshi 1978 cartoon when i was under 6, on lasersdisc (I'm that old). The Orcs and Balrog scared TF out of me, and that style of animation was/is amazing. Then i got to check out the books from the local libraries. I was excited but very wary when they announced the movies. I loved them. I knew no adaptation was going to be truly faithful to the books, but....the visuals, the score, ....they were the best movies I've ever seen. I still love them and am actively searching for copies of the extended editions AND the 1978 animation. Book is better for those who can envision in their heads better, and movies are vetter for those who need the visuals. The actors chosen were also top-notch. Even when I do read the books, I still picture the actors in my head even if they aren't accurate to the book descriptions, lol.
Book Aragorn is a far superior character than movie Aragorn. That's not to say I dislike movie Aragorn but the idea that he had to be reduced in "stature" to make him more relatable and allow for character growth is simply false in my opinion. There have been plenty of excellent movie and TV heroes who did not ever behave in the namby-pamby fashion that movie Aragorn occasionally does. Book Aragorn had his doubts at times but he knew he would either help bring Sauron down, claim the throne of the Reunited Kingdom and marry Arwen or die trying.
Happy new year and the movie version brings more tension to build up but they book version for his leadership so a combo for me
Happy New Year!
HEY LOVE THE CHANNEL BUT I HAD A QUESTION idk if it would make enough for a video but i was just wondering. in LOTR the Twin Towers after aragorn confronted the riders of rohan where in the north did they ride and why?
Love both versions and I agree with those who said that the movie Aragorn is a more relatable character. Having said that I wish that by the third movie Aragorn would have been more like the book character. Stronger, more confident. And for a movie called "The Return of the King" he really wasn't much in it, was he? :D
One change I liked was that in the book it comes across that Arwen is Aragon's reward for completing his quest, while in the moveis it feels more like Arwen and Aragon had a past that we just did not see on screen.
(Also, to me, it feelt like Arwen in the movies had a lot more agency on the decisions about her own life. Rather than her father deciding everything for her...)
Good point!
Both versions worked. Honestly, even with the self doubts and changes in the movie, movie Aragorn was still strong, determined, moral, loyal, etc, everything that was in the book. The character couldn't have been cast better than Vigor Mortensen too.
Is there a vid on this channel exploring "Lady Galadriel", I'm interested in her story....👍
Book version. Aragorn seems too weak in the movies. Tolkien's works always contain some element that bloodlines and inherent skill/talent are important which lends to the mysticism of his world. Aragorn has a destiny, is taught his past by Ellrond, is trained to be a warrior, king and honorable man, and sets forth to fulfill his mission in life. It is a powerful tale of willpower, putting in the work to train and learn what you can become, and doing what is right despite the odds. That is what made the character so powerful to me.
In the movies, the Rohirrim and Gondorians flock to his banner for seemingly no real reason. Some haggard dude from the north shows up all of a sudden and they all decide to throw in their lot with him? Meh.
Love your stuff. Keep going. Lord of The Rings. The Hobbit. It all change my life im ways and gave into knowledge that schools don't even teach anymore. I learned how to read, understand, old English writings by the age of 12. I'm thankful for people who keep such stories and knowledge going. It helps build the wisdom, spirit, and heart more than people realize. Stories people may spend time a campfire or bedtime story as it should be. Shows alot of hope, faith, and love. It hits the archs of all life.
The reluctant hero is a movie trope; Jackson couldn't resist.
Overall I prefer the version from the books the human self doubt and reluctance to take the Throne is still present it’s just more subtle I love the section where he enters Minas Tirith hooded “only as a captain of rangers” heals Eowyn and Merry as only the heir of isildur can and goes out and sleeps in his tent outside the walls of the city all to demonstrate that he knows he must take the throne but he is much more at home being a dutiful thankless ranger than a praised ruler
Elessar
a true Ranger of Gondor
he was one of the absolute most perfect aspects of the masterful Trilogy of the films
and one of my absolute favorite hero of Middle Earth
aside Legolas, Talion, Celebrimbor etc
They are both elements of the same person. Loved the books AND the movies.
I’ll always love the movie Aragon because he slips into the leader role easily after Gandalf died and he shows his flaws so we know he’s not perfect
...but he is also humble, flawed and selfless in the book...the main difference is that he is more confident than the movie version and that he acts in his age
Having movie Aragorn refuse his destiny and not take up Anduril in Rivendell was criminal, imho. Him wielding that sword is so badass in the books simply for how it scares Orcs shitless. Also, no "Guthwine! Guthwine for the Mark! Anduril! Anduril for the Dunedain!" made me a saaad panda.
Tl dr version: Book version.
Viggo Mortensen did an amazing job in the movies and that can color my opinion a bit. That said, when I actually look at the characters, I prefer the book version of nearly every character in LotR. Boromir is the sole exception.
The movie versions are all more timid creatures than un the books. I know that exploring pathos is a big thing in movies but it was neither warranted or wanted for LotR.
The movies remain amongst my favorites, but to me they will always fall short of the literary treasure that inspired them.
10:39 yes please!
I really appreciate how every single movie visually represents an additional step in Aragorn's path towards becoming a King:
1. FOTR: After the skirmish in Amon Hen, he adds the Gondor vambraces he loots from Boromir's armor as a sign of respect.
2. TT: He replaces his light blue shirt with a red shirt in Rohan, and later on he adds the chainmail over that shirt in preparation for the Battle of Helms Deep, while keeping the vambraces - a look which we will keep until he becomes King Elessar
3. ROTK (Part 1): Besides receiving Anduril, he adds the White Tree emblem to his Black Gate garb and Gondorian clothes, while keeping the "chainmail over red shirt and vambraces" look (different vambraces though), meaning he starts to opening up to his kingly heritage while not letting go of everything that helped him reach that point.
4. ROTK (Part 2): when he is crowned King, he still keeps the "chainmail over red shirt and vambraces" look, but now he adds Elendil's armor chestplate over it all, thus finally fulfilling his destiny and becoming a full fledged King.
Both are portrayed well in books and movies, like most of the characters are. Only ones I had some issues with movie portrayals with were Gimli and Denethor.
I’m going to hold off on my opinion for now, in detail, at least, because I feel the need to have a refresher by reading the books again and rewatching the animated series (movies are burned into my head by several rewatchings already). However, my usual consensus is that the book & movie media are mutually exclusive and tend to separate them in my mind as 2 versions of the story that work differently in each medium. I’m sure there might be some things that I might have wished were or weren’t changed between them or things left out I’d like to have seen. But nothing game changing to be a deal breaker or make me actively dislike 1 medium over the other. I seem to recall watching the animated one later, when older than my first childhood viewing, and being either confused somewhat or finding it a bit strange. But, as I said, it’s been a long time since & I would want to revisit to more accurately decide an informed opinion on specifics. Love what you guys do & glad to see you after the holidays. How you had a grand time. And definitely celebrating the great Tolkien’s life and works. He gave us an enduring universe to revel in. Also, taking the time to be thankful to his son and other family for gathering the works into the comprehensive form we see today, as they were ever changing stories & also for allowing many private letters and photos to be made public so that we may all have a glimpse into the man behind it all. Times are trying as it is, and we must remember that we are not cookie cutter copies of one another. It is okay if others have negative opinions of something you might love and not agree with. But, it’s important that we not name call or be rude to one another for that difference of opinion. Just agree to disagree and everyone has their own reasoning. We all love these works in our own way or we probably wouldn’t be here viewing content on it. I love and respect everyone here. 💕 Just wanted to express that and some positivity.
Yo guys should do a video for men, elves, and dwarves on who are the most skilled in combat
You missed a key point that shows movie Aragorn was an inconsistently written character: Movie Aragorn had no reason to become King at all. He expressly said he did not want that power, yet at the end, Sauron was defeated, the Ring was destroyed...clearly, it was time for Aragorn to return to being a Ranger in the north and for Faramir to rule Gondor as Steward. In the film, obviously, movie Aragorn must have decided he wanted that power after all, but it's not at all clear when or why. I like the movies, but that is bad writing. (Additionally, he uses "Elendil" as a battle cry at the Battle above Rauros Falls, yet he supposedly...doesn't...embrace his lineage?)
The warg attack on the road to Helm's Deep and Aragorn falling off a cliff also didn't add anything useful. No one in the theater was worried Aragorn was dead after he fell, it just seemed like another fake-out character death. It was a pointless waste of the audience's time. Theoden didn't need Aragorn to spot Saruman's army as they already knew Saruman was coming and the audience already saw them assembled at Isengard. The ambush on the road was like a weird homage to the (more interesting) scene in Hollin where the Company was attacked by wolves, but why not just do that Tolkien-written scene> The ambush also remains some of the worst CGI in the films with its fake looking wargs and many injured and dying CGI horses.
The change in Aragron's character also led to seeing Elrond as opposed to Aragorn and Arwen's marriage and gives the decision to reforge Narsil to Arwen. In the books, Elrond simply put a condition on their marriage, that Aragorn had to become kin of Arnor and Gondor to get his blessing, and that gave Aragorn yet another reason to desire the thrones and explains his (Aragorn's) having Narsil reforged into Anduril (before the Fellowship left Rivendell)..
I can say this much for the film's Aragorn: Gimli, Faramir and Denethor suffered more indignities at the hands of the screenwriters than Aragorn did. I can, with Aragorn, imagine scenes (not scenes the screenwiters wrote, but hypothetical ones) that close some of the holes (like why didn't escape into the wilds before the coronation, his heroic work done), but they ideally shouldn't need me to invent headcanon to have their character motivations make sense.
#respectthelore, Mr. Jackson! :)
Finally someone who point it out the difference between the Aragorn from the movie and the one from the book.
I've been saying this for years. I loved Vigo performance and how has been brought to the screen by PJ but the one in the book is another story. I think guys you forgot to mention one important aspect, which I don't know if you agree with me, I would really like to hear your opinion about this.
In the books he's not only aware of his destiny but even proud of it. Like in the passage when they reach Edoras and Hama stop them at the door forcing them to leave their weapons outside. In this passage Aragorn is not only willing to do it but he also claim that he's the heir to the throne of Gondor and King Theoden authorities does not apply to him, and Hama don't miss the chance to put him back by remanding him that Denethor sitting on the throne of Gondor as far as he knows.
The only moment in the movie when we see a drop of proudness is when they reach the Argonath and he point them to Frodo and he says almost whispering it: "Long have I desire to look upon the king of old, my kin".
I do understand the need of PJ to choose this path for Aragorn and it works on screen.
I think this change was pure Genius from P. Jackson. The whole Aragorn arc is quite comprehensive. The part where Aragorn fails to confront Sauron through Palentile actually adds more tension towards the final battle and the moment he actually becomes completely fearless is in the face of enemy and sheer will to protect his loved ones. The final charge to the black where he looks back and says "For Frodo" Literally gave me goosebumps because at that moment we saw a man who is actually ready to do what he is destined to do. And I think this character is quite awesome. I always liked the Reluctant hero characters as Jon Snow. So i guess this version actually worked for me
Book version of Aragorn was way better than the movie version, but the points you made in the video are definitely valid. I don't have particularly strong enough feelings about the changes to truly say I dislike them, but I know for sure the Aragorn I experienced when I read LOTR makes the most sense.
I wish everyone would stop ignoring the Ralph Bakshi Animated version which was actually a bit more faithful to the book. Especially with how Aragorn looked. Would be nice to see videos comparing the Book, The animated and the Jackson version.
I can definitely look at doing that in the future 😁
Are you joking? That Aragorn looked like an offensive caricature of a Native American. Although it does have a few redeeming qualities, altogether Bakshi's version was NOT a good film. Sam was a gibbering idiot. Gimli the DWARF was the same height as the non-hobbit characters. The Nazgûl moved liked they were escapees from a nursing facility. Merry and Pippin had absolutely no features distinguishing one from the other. Arauman or Saruman? Who knows? Boromir's goofy looking horned helmet, not to mention that the Prince of Gondor wore literally nothing apart from a fur tunic and aforementioned goody helmet. And who could forget the balrog's giant, fuzzy bedtime slippers? I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
Peter Jackson made a lot of changes because of audiovisual storytelling to attract and kept the big public giving an amazing cinema groundbreaking that's never gonna happen again on current trigger culture. But how many are looking in to the source material?
I’m just glad we’re reminded about who his dad is all the time. I mean, us dads never get so much credit in real life, ya know?
Those were a lot Vigo’s horses in the movie. He was a horse guy. That’s why he had a lot of moments with the animals.
Both, the book and movie Version of Aragorn, are great for their particular Media.
Imho i like the movie Version as portrayed by Viggo Mortensen a bit more relateable as he is, like you said, a bit more like an average person who grows with the Challenges he faces.
The book version, by a country mile. It was movie version I felt was "one note"-frequently coming across as a whiny emo. Book version starts with a clear purpose, then is filled with self-doubt for most of the trip between Parth Galen & Fangorn, but then reclaims his purpose once he meets Gandalf the White.
Also, we already had a reluctant hero to connect with-Frodo & Sam. Sadly, I just don't feel like Jackson truly understood the underlying MESSAGE of Tolkein's books.
HBD J
I fell in love with the Strider of the book. I was a little disappointed in the book Aragorn, but not much. The only self-doubt Aragorn had, in my opinion, was in giving up a life he loved, that of a Ranger. But he knew his duty and destiny and had no other doubts.
I prefer the book, this does not mean that the film is not good, I understand that they gave Aragorn a personality arc, however i feel that Aragorn’s arc comes at the expense of Gandalf in last film. Gandalf is completely sidelined, made stupid and weak in order to show Aragorn to be strong. It’s so bad that Gandalf doesn’t even need to be in the last film.
Fair point! It’s always good to understand both points of view to fully appreciate what decisions are made :)
@@TheBrokenSword well I think that they had to change the angle a bit. I see Aragorn in the book as going on the quest, to ensure that he becomes the king of Gondor and Arnor, but it’s not for power or destiny, it’s for love. Elrond proclaimed that the only mortal man he would allow his daughter to marry is the man who is king of both Gondor and Arnor. This doesn’t really fit with modern western thinking, so they changed it a bit, Aragorn goes on the quest to right the wrongs his ancestors have wrought originally and then only later takes up the quest to become King in order to save Arwen, as her fate is somehow tied to the rings fate, after she chooses to become mortal and cannot escape Sauron.
Once boromir dies aragorn in the movies changes more to the commanding presence he is in the books.
I think a stronger Aragorn would have been good in the movies.
I miss these longer deep dives into Lord of the Rings lore.
I really do not have a preference. I like the difference between each one. It gives us a different perspective of how the character should be like, I like it when they change things for different adaptations it is really cool to have Aragorn have different personalities in each adaptation.
🔥
I am pretty satisfied with both book version and film version of Aragorn.
He did succeed in the extended version though. He was more confident and commanding in the extended edition, going as far as showing Sauron the reforged sword in the palantir. Sauron was losing until he showed Aragorn an image of Arwen. Other than that he was still the same reluctant guy throughout the movies.
I think both versions are incredible for their respective mediums. I personally would have liked movie Aragorn to contest Sauron's will with the palantir and win but in the context of the movie, it heightens the drama and stakes. But I love both mediums immensely.
The book is better in every aspect and that is coming from someone who saw the movies first.
Although I prefer the books, I do think that each of the adaptations so far, ie the bbc and minds eye radio adaptations, the animated version and Peter Jackson’s movies are worthwhile. Only gripe I have with the Jackson movies is the omission of Tom Bombadil and the scene with the barrow wights. In fact, the blade that Merry gets from that section of the book is very important when he stabs the lord of the nazguls at a later point
I'm more with the book Aragorn. In the movie I missed a lot of his kingly reveal. I would have liked to see more of him healing, the townspeople acknowledge him as king. The more silent but powerful signs of kingdom. I am not sure, if nonreaders ever catched, what's about that little plant, Sam has to find at Weathertop.
But on the other hand I love Viggo Mortensens Aragorn for himself. It is just another story, I'm fine with it.
He was born to be the King . But he also earned the rights to BE THE KING . And that is HUGE DIFFERENCE ❤️.
just wait until the first LOTR remake - if ya want to talk about changes
and probably not good either
I can foresee Valinor will look like some Syrian neighborhood both in architecture as in ethnicity 😂😂😂
Off topic but what happens of Frodo doesn't pick the dwarf mines an continue on the mountain or somthing..
It would be great, if there would be english subtitles :)
Not sure why it's auto generated Dutch... We have set it to English :S
Obviously Jackson swapped aragorn over to the reluctant hero cliche vs the book where he is proud and wanting for the crown. As far as the essence of Aragorn goes in his calm moments and such I think they got it spot on. Vigo is more than perfectly meant to play him. The scene that always gets me is when Aragorn is alone with Frodo and the tension builds as to how the ring will affect him. He gently closes Frodo's hand around the ring and says something like "I would have followed you to whatever end." I dont cry at movies but that was too beautiful.
The way movie Aragorn regards women forever waters my crops. He handles Eowyn's unrequited affections with dignity, he respects her burning will to fight without question when every other man in her life downplays her abilities and discounts her gender. Even the way in the movies he does not challange Arwen's statement "I'm the faster rider" and allows her to take on the dangerous ride to Rivendell which ended up being vital in the movie story, even when Samwise dispareges him for it, he trusts her. He does not argue with her beyond "it's mine to give" and respects her decisions even if he disagrees. Aragorn is top tier manhood.