Replies

"The thing that stands out most for me is the lack of nobility of the characters. In FOTR Aragorn, the ranger, exhibited little noble, kingly bearing."

I respectfully disagree. While there was no one instant in which he was dramatically "changed" I saw that kingly bearing almost from day 1, peeking through the exterior of the ranger. I saw it grow when he took up the armor to ride into battle with Theidin in TTT and I saw him really come into his own in the mountain of the dead. I saw his nobility shine through in the encounter with Eowyn before riding off to the mountain. There were just so many moments when his character glowed with nobility. Perhaps the discrepancy is in the way we define nobility.

I don't think that the difference is a merely a semantic one. In a side by side comparison, the contrast in Theoden and Aragorn is great. Maybe it's just a matter of Bernard Hill upstaging Viggo Mortensen. Whatever it was, Bernard Hill's Theoden was a much more noble (illustrious, lofty, superior, aristocratic) acting character.

This is particularly unfortunate for the character Aragorn because he is not to be just any old king, he is the KING OF MEN in middle earth.

The part that was particularly difficult for me to accept was knowing that in the book Aragorn did not dare enter the city of Gondor, even after leading the Army of the Dead. He wanted to be sure the people were convinced of his worthiness. The Aragorn in the movie did not have the opportunities to prove birthright or win the affection of the people of Gondor. That was PJ's fault.

All throughout LOTR Tolkien allowed the King of Men to show through Aragorn. Tolkien's Aragorn had many opportunities to give evidence of noble behavior and I never considered Theoden to be Aragorn's equal even though he too was a king.

Even within the confines of the Aragorn PJ wrote, there was still some leeway so that the acting would have added refinement to the character. A strong show of personality, a stately and noble bearing would have done a lot to make his character fit better, even with the missing book events that would prove his nobility. In this I fault both the director and actor.

I saw scenes of PJ doing take after take to get just what he wanted emotionally out of a scene. If PJ had wanted it in the movie, it would have been there. So I believe that if the character was not played with a kingly bearing it could either be PJ's fault in not requiring it or Viggo's fault for not being able to produce it. As is more likely, it may also be a combination of all three. PJ's writing and directing, as well as Viggo's acting.

This Aragorn as a character is more common, more like an ordinary human, than the one in the book. Perhaps PJ did this on purpose thinking it would be more easy for the audience to identify with him if he lost some of the kingly shine and behaved more like an everyday joe schmo.

I truly appreciate the tone you've taken and although I disagree I certainly respect your opinion.