Aragorn vs movie Aragorn

[yovargas]

It kinda annoys me when some people think that those who don't approach LOTR the same way as them clearly "don't get it". I guess that's probably true sometimes but as a general pov it's obnoxiously arrogant. I can "get" book-Aragorn and still think he's dull dull dull. Were I making a movie of LOTR, I would take the elements I thought were boring and try to make them more interesting. That's what I saw PJ & co doing with things like Aragorn and for me and plenty of people they succeeded just fine. If you don't like it, maybe you just don't get it.

[solicitr]

Vision, if I had the billions to toss around, I'd be happy to finance a purist film project.





Al, I know very well how Oscar voting works.* The basic premise for the two screenplay awards (original and adapted) is that every Academy member with a single screenwriting credit gets a vote. While that includes of course those responsible for Adaptation <chuckle> and Atonement, I'm afraid that simple mathematics greatly favors the votes of the other sort, the kind whose products fill most of the space at your local Blockbuster.



* Even leaving out the politics and campaigning and minor corruption that hangs over the process like a malarial haze

[solicitr]

Were I making a movie of LOTR, I would take the elements I thought were boring and try to make them more interesting.

I would suggest that an adaptor should be sufficiently self-abnegatory to render (within the limits of a different medium) the author's book, not his own 'improvements'- which would be, shall we say, arrogant.

I'm sure that you, Yov, and Alatar and Philippa and, yes, even me find things in Tolkien's book they aren't crazy about. But since, as you point out, no two people are going to have the same preferred alterations, the sensible (and humble) thing to do is to not make anybody's 'improvements': The Lord of the Rings hasn't been a bestseller for half a century because people hate Tolkien's version of his own story!

[Primula Baggins]

soli, that was me, not Alatar. What you apparently don't understand is that very few screenwriters are members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. You become a member by being nominated by a current member, vetted, and selected. Being an Academy Award nominee usually gets you in, but it isn't automatic. Simply selling a screenplay gets you precisely nowhere: an Oscar nomination or a distinguished career are just about the only way in.

AMPAS currently has 5,829 voting members—that's everyone, actors, directors, writers, technicians, the whole industry. There are only 396 screenwriters in the Academy, and I can guarantee you they do not include the hacks you're talking about.

Edit: But, soli, Tolkien's version of his story is the book. It cannot be made into a film without changing it, even if every scene is simply transcribed into a script (and that would be unfilmable and probably unwatchable—picture listening to the talking heads at the Council of Elrond for an hour or two!). Making the imagined visible means deciding what will be shown, and we don't all have the same images.

And it would not be a film. Changes have to be made to tell this story in even 11 or 12 hours of film. I'm not saying no unnecessary changes were made, but just that some changes are necessary. That isn't arrogance; that's adapting one medium into another.

[Faramond]

"Borat" is joining the Academy this year --- how exclusive can it be?

[solicitr]

Prim, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Of course films are not books, and operate in a different narrative mode. The adaptor is dealing with constraints of time, not only its duration but the fact that film moves in time- the audience can't go back and re=read something or flip ahead to the Appendices to make sure they've got it straight. And it's a visula medium- twenty minutes of people sitting around talking is deadly. I agree on all points.

But having said all that, none of the above is a license to change everything willy-nilly even when the demands of the new medium don't require it. The Council did not have to, and should not have, degenerate into an inane shouting-match. Film requires that a character be presented in a different mode than prose: but that doesn't mean that a different character be substituted. I think that my belief that PBJ din't Get It is borne out by the evidence of Denethor: the demented ogre that movie-Denethor is bears almost no relation at all to Tolkien's infinitely subtle sketch of a shrewd, proud, but deeply flawed ruler facing a crisis beyond his strength. I don't think PBJ ever understood book-Denethor, so instead they fell back on the Mean Daddy cliche.

Another example would be the mishandling of Saruman, the replacement of the absolutely brilliant speech Tolkien puts in his mouth speaking to Gandalf, which Shippey quite rightly identified as the meaningless rhetoric of the modern politician. Movie-Saruman has none of that, instaed intoning "There will be no dawn for Men" like a stock overblown Hollywood baddie.

Have you noticed how the movies suddenly become several grades better whenever the writers allow Genuine Tolkien Text (tm) in? Contrast a universal favorite moment, Théoden's alliterative pep-talk before the great charge, with Aragorn's lame attempt at an Agincourt speech before the Morannon, which could have come sraight out of Independence Day.

And let's not even go into Faramir's thugs doing the Abu Ghraib dance on Gollum, or Aragorn beheading an ambassador, or Gandalf cold-cocking the Lord Steward of Gondor. No, I don't think PBJ understood Tolkien's characters at all. If they *did* understand them, then to my mind that's an aggravating, not mitigating, factor.

(Belches, Dwarf-tossing jokes and shield-surfing beneath discussion)

[Primula Baggins]

Soli, most of what you picked I wouldn't defend. I don't find the changes as offensive as you do because Denethor and Saruman are not as important to me as other characters (even though I quite recognize their importance in the story). I wish they had been handled better, I truly do, but their mishandling does not destroy the whole film for me.

After years of discussing LotR, I really can understand why some people who love the book hate the films. I'm just not one of them.

Faramond, Borat's screenplay was nominated, and so it's no surprise that its writer got into the academy. Appalling as the level of humor was, it was also widely praised as a good script. Apparently comedy isn't pretty.

[Faramond]

He's been invited under the actor's wing. I don't have an issue with Cohen being invited --- I don't care --- it just struck me as funny.

[Primula Baggins]

Ah, well. <sniffs> Actors.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Soli, most of what you picked I wouldn't defend. I don't find the changes as offensive as you do because Denethor and Saruman are not as important to me as other characters (even though I quite recognize their importance in the story). I wish they had been handled better, I truly do, but their mishandling does not destroy the whole film for me.

I would say that it is pretty well accepted that the most important characters are Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo and Sam (not necessarily in that order).

Aragorn doubted his destiny and lopped off the head of an ambassador.

Gandalf doubted himself, whacked Denethor over the head, and arguably pushed him into the fire.

Frodo was whiny and indefensibly sent Sam home.

And Sam, well Sam was Sean Astin.

[Primula Baggins]

Two words, Voronwë: John Boorman.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Come on, Prim. Wouldn't you pay money see the fellowship beat the password out of Gimli? Or Galadriel seduce Frodo?

[Primula Baggins]

I think I would discover how vison feels.

[Impenitent]

I wasn't going to comment because I never do so in book vs movie discussions but I really have to put in a good word for my book Aragorn.

I never found him boring; I found him enigmatic, strong, resolute, humane, stoic and very internal. I loved the few, the very few, glimpses into his internal emotional life and have always been very glad that they were so sparse. I didn't care that, over the course of the story, his character was unchanging because I loved his character! and moreover, I did discover more and more about him as the story unfolded. More and more and yet not enough. I certainly cared about Aragorn, was intrigued by him.

As for the kingship - I did not see that he aimed for the kingship until Rivendell. The reforging of his sword is symbolic of his resolution - new resolution - to seek the kingship. Before that time, I don't believe there is any indication that he wanted anything more than to guard his inheritance and keep the flame of the kingship alive.

In my view, the treatment of Aragorn in the movie weakens the character, even as it makes him more human, more accessible. But his strength of mind, his resolution is much weakened.

I won't mention Denethor and Faramir further than to say that PJs treatment of them was such a disappointment to me! My son and I are reading LoTR together - well, I'm reading it out loud to him, as a shared experience, and we are now in company with Frodo, Sam and Faramir and even my son (aged 10) has commented that the book Faramir is nobler, more honourable, more admirable that the film character which he never really liked or understood.

I'll leave that though, because this is about Aragorn.

I've never studied literature beyond high school, so the idea of character arcs and Aragorn's lack thereof was completely new to me when I first came across it back at TORC 6 years ago and I have to say...I don't much care about it. Aragorn does not require a character arc for the character to be compelling and intriguing to me.

[Dave_LF]

Have you noticed how the movies suddenly become several grades better whenever the writers allow Genuine Tolkien Text (tm) in?

Indeed. I watched them this weekend for the first time in a long time, and found the contrast almost jarring. The trio did an excellent job of arranging Tolkien's work into a screenplay, but a pretty mediocre one of original writing.

[WampusCat]

I wasn't going to comment because I never do so in book vs movie discussions but I really have to put in a good word for my book Aragorn.

I never found him boring; I found him enigmatic, strong, resolute, humane, stoic and very internal. I loved the few, the very few, glimpses into his internal emotional life and have always been very glad that they were so sparse. I didn't care that, over the course of the story, his character was unchanging because I loved his character! and moreover, I did discover more and more about him as the story unfolded. More and more and yet not enough. I certainly cared about Aragorn, was intrigued by him.

As for the kingship - I did not see that he aimed for the kingship until Rivendell. The reforging of his sword is symbolic of his resolution - new resolution - to seek the kingship. Before that time, I don't believe there is any indication that he wanted anything more than to guard his inheritance and keep the flame of the kingship alive.

In my view, the treatment of Aragorn in the movie weakens the character, even as it makes him more human, more accessible. But his strength of mind, his resolution is much weakened.
...

I've never studied literature beyond high school, so the idea of character arcs and Aragorn's lack thereof was completely new to me when I first came across it back at TORC 6 years ago and I have to say...I don't much care about it. Aragorn does not require a character arc for the character to be compelling and intriguing to me.

I was mentally composing a post while reading through this thread, but now I don't have to. Impy said everything I would have said.

Well, I might add a bit...

I enjoy the movies, flaws and all, but I've loved book Aragorn completely since my first reading as a young girl. Book-Aragorn's inner conflicts, so well summarized in the first post in this thread, seem much more real and meaningful to me than Film-Aragorn's.

In the book, Aragorn was torn between duties. One one hand was his duty not just to win the woman he loved but to take on the leadership of men. His heart knew this was his path; it was his desire, his passion, his destiny. It wasn't a matter of grasping for power but of becoming all that he could be, was meant to be.

On the other hand, he was forced by Gandalf's death to protect and lead the Ringbearer -- obviously a role that couldn't be shirked.

Torn between competing duties, where your heart pushes you one way but necessity pushes you another way? That's a conflict I face almost every day. You can't get much more real than that.

[sauronsfinger]

The only true Purist adaption of the book to the screen would feature a close-up on each page of the book and then seeing each page turned after a minute or two.

And I fear some purists would time each page and then offer criticism that some pages were kept on the screen for longer periods than others thus showing favoritism and dilluting the true words of JRRT.

[vison]

I think the movie was aimed at that mythical 14 year-old boy who was thought to be the ONLY audience for a "fantasy" movie. The movie was "better" than that, because there were a few people involved who understood that it was a "better" story than Conan the Barbarian. Don't you guyz all remember the amazed critics who simply couldn't believe that girls and women LOVED the movies?

I hated the dumbing down of the things that were dumbed down. The movies were so enormously popular and successful that I KNOW they would have been popular and successful if the "high tone" had been consistent, instead of just intermittent. With the odd exception, even the kids I know thought that surfing Legolas, and Legolas-bringing-down-an-apartment-building-sized elephant alone were stupid.

The book? Tolkien wrote the kind of story, he said, that he liked to read. And it just happens to be the kind of story I like to read.

My idea of a purist movie would not involve filming the pages! I would have kept the asinine and puerile crap out, that's all. I might very well have left Bombadil out, but I wouldn't have had Éowyn making stew for Aragorn. Things like that just make my teeth ache.

Impenitent and Wampus, we are the Aragorn Appreciation Society and I am proud to be a member.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Don't leave AJ out of that club. After all, he's the one that started this thread in the first place.

[vison]

Don't leave AJ out of that club. After all, he's the one that started this thread in the first place.

Well. . . . . only if he fantasizes about being marooned in Dunland with Bookagorn . . . .