He was only good in LOTR because the fight scenes made him seem manly. Without them, he would be as you described, which tortured the character of Aragorn.
I liked the movies, and likes the visual presentation of Middle Earth, but the movies screwed up many of the roles.
The most obvious was Arwen, Warrior Princess, who turned into Limp Arwen when the movie makers realized there was no way to write Xena into the LOTR.
In doing so, they took a critical scene away from Frodo, whose courage & strength are demonstrated in the Flight to the Ford in the books. And in the movies, Frodo remains a wimp. He doesn’t show an ounce of initiative or judgment, but screws up almost everything he touches.
Aragorn, in the book, WANTS to be King. In the movie, he rejects it as too great a burden - a Viggo sort of wimpiness that betrays the character of Aragorn. Had there been a fourth movie, I don’t doubt but that King Aragorn would have tried to compromise with the Orcs...probably by offering them a free dental plan funded by taxes on white farmers who had for so long oppressed them.
In the scenes at Rivendell, I kept hoping Arwen would say something like, “Grow a pair, Aragorn! You won’t get in my panties until you man up and get your throne! These breasts were made for princes to nurse, not poets”...although one doesn’t get the feeling Viggo would know what to do with them anyways.
The moron campaigned for Dennis Kucinich for president.
That’s all I need to know.
I think Arwen’s character was written into the movie to please feminists. Otherwise the LOTRs is a story about male heroes taking action.
The scene with Arwen at the river is invention.
The movies (because of time constraints) didn’t really go into the relationships between Aragorn and the Elves, nor that of his race (early, superior men who lived hundreds of years) and the current men; these would explain some of the issues with him taking the throne. Most of his people were gone (the steward and his sons being exceptions), and he was probably more akin to the departing elves.
As someone who wrote an (unproduced) adaptation of a book (the producers decided they couldn't afford the film), I can tell you, the fans of LOTR who complain about this stuff simply have no idea what goes into adapting a book. I am not trying to be insulting--hell, I thought I knew a lot before I worked on the adaptation of a much simpler story.
The fans of LOTR have very little to complain about if they're going to be realistic. Screen time, pacing, and something as simple as not giving a character too much to do because the nature of watching a motion picture dictates that people will simply get bored even if they're interested in that character--it's so incredibly complicated that I think LOTR deserved every award it got.
I've read so many complaints about things that were cut our or altered, and I just shake my head. Arwen is another example--there just wasn't time, and they chose to make her character (who isn't even IN the main book, she's in an appendix) what she was to mix it up.
I didn't get that Aragorn didn't want to be king. He understood the burden, but they certainly didn't spend tons of screentime showing him afraid of leading. They touched on it once, then we saw him taking command--so much more interesting than meeting someone who from the moment we meet him wants this thing and trudges forward to get it. This arc only strengthened the first film for non-book readers (who, sorry to tell you, had to be taken into account if they money would be there to make this financially workable).
Nope, sorry, the fans who complain about this have no idea how bad it COULD have been (such as with the initial TWO-movie idea, not to mention the ghastly animated version(s)), and their complaints are small potatoes.
Apparently, according to the armsmaster, the professional sword user who traided and advised the actors, kept the weapons, did all the health and safety with them and so on, Mortenson was THE best pupil he had ever had. He was VERY good with a sword. In fact, it wouldnt surprise me if some of the fight scenes were amended to give him more screen time, so as to show off that skill.
Aragorn, in the book, WANTS to be King. In the movie, he rejects it as too great a burden - a Viggo sort of wimpiness that betrays the character of Aragorn. Had there been a fourth movie, I don’t doubt but that King Aragorn would have tried to compromise with the Orcs...probably by offering them a free dental plan funded by taxes on white farmers who had for so long oppressed them.
I think that's enormously unfair. Viggo Mortenson had a very small part in the characterisation of Aragorn. The decision to make him unwilling to be king was made by the producers, director and writers. It was, in my opinion, an extremely good move too. It made LOTR a much, much better movie.
The whole point of a story is that you have a character in one situation at the start, and in a different situation/frame of mind at the end. The story is made by them progressing (or occasionally regressing) from one state to the other. The obstacles along the way create "drama". The point of LOTR the book is that it was very much about the hobbits, and the rest of the characters are just people they meet and interact with. That's fine on the printed page, but in the film, where the other characters have a lot of screen time, you need to show them progressing as well. Having Aragorn reluctant to take up the burden of Leadership of the reunited kingdom makes his final triumph all the more interesting.