Narsil

[JMacEye]

Has PJ changed LOTR by having Aragorn leave Rivendell to go fight the fight of his life, to protect the Fellowship of the Ring, only the most important event in Middle Earth and one that will determine its fate, and he has left without NARSIL??? I was assuming that PJ had just not shown the sword being forged since he chooses to not show lots of dramatic moments, like the three hunters encounter with Eomer on the fields of Rohan.

Do we know this? Of all the changes, this one is insane. There was NO task more important than protecting the Fellowship and keeping the Ring out of the hands of the enemy.

Yet is it a fact that Aragorn is not carrying Narsil, but just any old sword as he goes out to likely face the Witch King? (Since when he left Rivendell, they knew the Nine were abroad).

And now it looks like the Rivendell elves are all getting out of Dodge, even ARWEN and not even waiting to see what happens to Middle Earth. It even appears that Elrond is the only elf left. What is he going to do, reforge it himself....then run off to find Aragorn and say he changed his mind, he can have his sword now cause he might need it?

And even if it does not happen like this, how can it be justified that he DOES NOT have Narsil yet? As far as everyone knows, he is going off to fight the War of the Ring...and the sword has not even been mentioned in TTT?

[aragil]

There was a scene from the trailers with Elrond or Arwen running to the sword, but either it was cut out of the Theatrical Release or moved up to The Return of the King.

Is it so insane that Aragorn has gone off without it? I think this all boils down to the issue of whether you think Aragorn should have been changed at all. Aragorn in the movies was going to help Frodo find a way into Mordor- any serious combat probably meant the doom of the quest. Aragorn was hardly wielding 'any' sword- he was probably using the same sword that the chieftains of Arnor/Arthedain/the Dunedain had been using for the last 3000 years- probably a sword of some lineage.

In the books Aragorn was specifically marching to war in Gondor, to oppose Sauron, protect Gondor, and (hopefully) reclaim his Kingship. In this sense it makes sense to take the sword- in the context of the film it doesn't. Of course, there's also the dramatic point of waiting until the King is truly ready to return to kingship before you have the sword reforged. Finally, my last personal opinion is that by having Aragorn use a sword of lesser lineage for two films, we establish him as his own man. He's not just a fellow with a Kingly sword- he is a King who deserves such a sword.

[Talimon]

PJ has not "forgotten" that Narsil is there. Do you honestly think he'd have included that whole scene in Rivendell right in-front of it for no reason? Or gone to the length of showing it's history and how it was destroyed?

The scene at Aragorn's mother's grave sums it up. Elrond tells him that the Elves can reforge the "sword of kings." Aragorn says "I do not want that power. I have never wanted it." My point is that PJ has changed Aragorns charachter on purpose (see my thread title 'Aragorn Conflict'). The purpose here is to make him a charachter that will become a king, not just be one to begin with. Narsil essentially represents Aragorns link to the past.... to Isildur. PJ has made Aragorns conflict involve a fear of repeating Isildurs actions; of misusing power. As such it does not make any sense to have Narsil reforged when Aragorn is still doubting whether he wants to become king. Instead PJ has moved Narsil to RotK, where it will be reforged to cooincide with Aragorn accepting his fate. It will be reforged. PJ is just developing Aragorn into a king before he has him claim it. Indeed, if my guesses are correct we will see Narsil being the symbol of Aragorns kingship.

[Harad the White]

the sword has no ties to the ring, OTHER THAN THE FACT ONE is made to destroy the ohter......one is the exact opposite of the other....there is NO conflict in Aragron regarding his lineage or kingship....HIS WARRIOR CULTURE binds him to his throne....

THE HAND OF THE KING IS THE HAND OF THE HEALER.....

IT IS ARAGORN'S DESTINY, EVEN IF THE EMPEROR HAS FORSEEN IT..

[JMacEye]

Oh course I do not think PJ has "fogotten" Narsil, I just think he has muddled around with the story so much that it is like a trail of dominoes....once he changes one thing he has to change another and he knocks down more and more bits of important plot threads.

I did read your Aragorn conflict, Talimon, but reject it as justifying this huge plot change. It is certainly filled with internal logic, and is well thought out, but as a plot device, it makes me shudder.

Two movies are complete, and I have not seen Aragrom "grew" as you seem to think he is supposed to be doing any more than book Aragorn "grew". Certainly the wonderful "hidden King" Tolkien wrote made my feel thrilled over and over again, such as the scene when the Three Hunters meet Eomer.

But instead, PJ has stooped to the tired theme of eveyone coimg from behind to win. Part of Tolkien's ENTIRE MYTHOLOGY was that SOME people were already Noble and far above other men...it seems like PJ just had to be PC.

And it is incredible to say that Aragorn did not NEED Narsil to protect the Fellowship!! There were Nine Nazgul out there looking for it. They could only HOPE to travel unseen, they certainly could not expect it. No sword other than Anduril, wielded by Aragorn, could stand against the Nine...

I am not saying here that he was the only one on ME, because of course there was Glorfindel (ignored by PJ) and Gandalf, but that he needed this sword, and no other, to be prepared for the task of protecting the Fellowship....otherwise, the Fellowship could have gone with anyone who could guide them, it would not have needed to be Aragorn.

No, this is a far more disappointing than anything else PJ has done.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I will say this much for Mr. Jackson: having decided that his Aragorn would have to be "coaxed" into accepting his "destiny" and birthright - the throne of Gondor - he at least had the decency not to reforge Narsil into Anduril and give it to this self-chosen "exile" at the start of the Quest. This is the King's sword and until Aragorn accepts his heritage, he has no right to the sword nor does he have the required moral authority to use it.

Doubtless, Jackson intends to use the sword as "proof" that his character has finally "grown" enough to be a worthy king, at which time he will receive the sword. This will probably happen if Jackson includes the "Paths of the Dead" plot thread since Aragorn will require some proof of his right as Elendil's heir to call the oathbreakers to fulfill their oath at last. In the book, that talisman is his banner, but as the film's Arwen is too busy to embroider, it will have to be the sword. Hopefully, it won't be a wedding gift!

Of course, to reiterate for the thousandth time (slight exaggeration), in the book, such machinations were unnecessary. Aragorn never denied his heritage and thus Narsil was reforged, renamed and carried throughout the Quest by the man who not only would, but wanted to be "King".

[JMacEye]

Mrs. Maggot wrote

I will say this much for Mr. Jackson: having decided that his Aragorn would have to be "coaxed" into accepting his "destiny" and birthright - the throne of Gondor - he at least had the decency not to reforge Narsil into Anduril and give it to this self-chosen "exile" at the start of the Quest. This is the King's sword and until Aragorn accepts his heritage, he has no right to the sword nor does he have the required moral authority to use it.

Exactly. The dominoe effect requires that certain changes mean more changes and so on. This change is particularly egregious to me. That we cannot have a man of Aragorn's character leading us through the films, but rather have him diminished from the beginning so PJ can redeem him makes me sick. And then there are all the other changes needed to support this, like Arwen taking off for the Havens, and Elrond acting like a jerk and those at Helm's Deep being deprived of one of the most effective powerful men to ever walk Middle Earth...and it goes on and on.

SIGH

[aragil]

Who can resist the Nazgul, Aragorn or Narsil? If I recall correctly (and I do) Aragorn resisted the Nazgul fine at Weathertop without the sword. It was not the only sword that could damage the nine, as Merry and Eowyn could attest.
JMacEye, it seems that you think the sword is mightier than the man. I think you're missing something in your analysis. Last time I watched the movie, Aragorn protected the people at Helm's Deep fine with the sword he had. Simply put, he does not need the sword to fight well. However, on a symbolic level, the sword is very important in terms of the Kingship. Aragorn in the movie leaves Rivendell with no definite designs on the Kingship, therefore it wouldn't make any sense in the movie. However, in the books

from The Lord of the Rings, The Ring Goes South
`I would have begged you to come,' said Frodo, 'only I thought you were going to Minas Tirith with Boromir.'
`I am,' said Aragorn. `And the Sword-that-was-Broken shall be reforged ere I set out to war. But your road and our road lie together for many hundreds of miles.'
...
The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elvish smiths, and on its blade was traced a device of seven stars set between the crescent Moon and the rayed Sun, and about them was written many runes; for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor. Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again; the light of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold, and its edge was hard and keen. And Aragorn gave it a new name and called it Andúril, Flame of the West.
...
Their farewells had been said in the great hall by the fire, and they were only waiting now for Gandalf, who had not yet come out of the house. A gleam of firelight came from the open doors, and soft lights were glowing in many windows. Bilbo huddled in a cloak stood silent on the doorstep beside Frodo. Aragorn sat with his head bowed to his knees; only Elrond knew fully what this hour meant to him.

To me it's pretty clear in the books that Aragorn has the Sword reforged because he is going to war in Minas Tirith, not because he wants to protect the Fellowship from Ringwraiths. Again IIRC, the only weapon that protects the Fellowship from the Wraiths in the book is the Bow of Legolas.

[JMacEye]

Well, Aragil, you are certainly entitled to your opinion of the importance of the sword...but the book makes quite a big deal out of all the important swords. I wish PJ would have been more true to THAT story than his own.

It is my opinion that the entire tale concerning Aragorn was better told by Tolkien and PJ's version is far inferior...just not as dramatic nor interesting to me. PJ's is way too simple minded for my tastes.

Aragorn, IMO, would most certainly would have been in trouble on Weathertop if he had faced the Nine, rather than the four....that was the point I was trying to make.

He may have been on his way to Minus Tirith when he left Rivendell, but it was to fight for Gondor, and he wanted and should have had Anduril with him...in fact he did do so in the book because he was GOING to fight against Sauron along side Boromir...why would he want to go without it?

[Odo Proudfoot]

Originally posted by JMacEye
He may have been on his way to Minus Tirith when he left Rivendell, but it was to fight for Gondor, and he wanted and should have had Anduril with him...in fact he did do so in the book because he was GOING to fight against Sauron along side Boromir...why would he want to go without it?

Because part of the film plot is that he does not want that power when he starts out from Rivendell. He goes with Frodo, not to claim Kingship of Gondor.

Only when Frodo decides to go to Mordor alone, at Amon Hen, does Aragorn re-consider what he will do next. He goes off to save Merry and Pippin, then finds himself suddenly bound up in the war between Rohan and Saruman. There he meets Theoden, and for the first time in his life he sees a real King in action.

He observes Theoden and learns from him that it takes more to be King than roaming in the Wild and killing Orcs - that being King means being responsible for your people. He also tastes Theoden's bitterness for his supposed ally, Gondor - and he sees how the Elves honour their old alliance and come to Rohan's aid. All of this makes him think very hard, culminating (at least for now) in him urging Theoden to ride out for the last assault, 'for Rohan'.

Clearly, Aragorn is now very much in the process of changing his attitude towards being King. It won't be long now before he will remember Narsil, and will want to carry it.

Odo

[JMacEye]

Odo wrote:

Clearly, Aragorn is now very much in the process of changing his attitude towards being King. It won't be long now before he will remember Narsil, and will want to carry it.

Yes, I understand fully the poor substitute PJ has used instead of Tolkien's finely crafted tale....

I had simply assumed all along that Aragorn was carrying Narsil because I could not imagine he would not want to take it to Gondor, but that was before I realised just how far from Tolkien's story Mr. Jackson had deviated....

He does not want to be King, he does not want to honor his committment to Arwen, he is afraid of himself, he wants to run away from his destiny...waaaaaa...poor baby.

Bleah!!

Replacing Glorfindel with the pitiful Arwen was bad enough, raping Faramir's character was despicable, but this total character change for Aragorn is not only terribly unsatisfying, but frankly I am finally starting to really dislike this Jackson guy for making such a mess of things (just my opinion, of course, and my right, just as it is his to mangle it).

I simply do not have decent words for what I think of this change.

[Talimon]

I just want to say that I don't agree with the claim that Aragorn hasn't grown in the film. The strongest scene that demonstrates this has been Boromirs death scene. Aragorn says clearly: "I do not know what strength is in my blood, but I will not let the White City fall, nor our people fail." This is in sharp contrast to Aragorn denying his heritage at the begginning of the tale. Other scenes also help: Him hearing Boromir speak of the splendor of Minas Tirith, his talk with Galadriel, and Boromir accusing him on the shores of the Anduin. Also, on a more subtle level, the way he reacts to the Argonath.

As for TTT, he becomes much more of a leader. He begins identifying with men.

We can certainly leave it at a difference of opinions, JMacEye. But to me what PJ has done is far more interesting then just having a confident king to begin with (hidden or not). It makes for a more interesting dramatic charachter, and will make his decision to be king all the more powerful. You mention earlier in this thread this change being due to PJ wanting to be "PC". I don't see how being politically correct has anything to do with having a conflicted charachter. As I mentioned in my other thread, charachter conflict is one of the most important elements in drama.

[JMacEye]

Talimon wrote:

You mention earlier in this thread this change being due to PJ wanting to be "PC". I don't see how being politically correct has anything to do with having a conflicted charachter. As I mentioned in my other thread, charachter conflict is one of the most important elements in drama.

Perhaps, perhaps not....but the possibility entered my mind that PJ did not like the idea of a Man so much better, higher, and more noble, ...whatever... than everyone else...for he has certainly cut Aragorn down to size, and his susposed reason for doing so (to make it more "dramatic"-- which is a personal opinion not shared by myself and many others), is thin. He does not seem to think much of any man....

He has certainly cheapened Faramir (who could not be faulted in the book), and Frodo (who could not be faulted in the book) and Theoden (who was not nearly as pathetic as film Theoden as a man or a King) and Elrond (who was never as derisive and ugly concerning Aragorn) by making their characters either totally different and less honorable and noble -- Faramir-- or more coarse and impatient -- Frodo -- or more weak and cowardly -- Theoden -- or more vindictive and jealous of a man raised as your own and loved as a son -- Elrond.

He simply did not make a single character (save perhaps Galadriel) as fine and noble as they were in the book....Even Gandalf had to be afraid of going in to Moria....I think he has a problem with it....and, as I said, maybe it is a PC thing....nobody is better than anybody else....

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
...We can certainly leave it at a difference of opinions, JMacEye. But to me what PJ has done is far more interesting then just having a confident king to begin with (hidden or not). It makes for a more interesting dramatic charachter, and will make his decision to be king all the more powerful. You mention earlier in this thread this change being due to PJ wanting to be "PC". I don't see how being politically correct has anything to do with having a conflicted charachter. As I mentioned in my other thread, charachter conflict is one of the most important elements in drama.

I guess my greatest disappointment in the film is PJ's changing the very character of the story. In the book, Aragorn is a man driven by destiny. He is confident (earned through his adventures in both Rohan and Gondor as a young man), he is decisive, he has missions (reclaim the kingship and wed Arwen to name a few), he has vision, he has CHARACTER. PJ chooses to portray him as a man torn between his duty as the heir of the Kingdom of Arnor and Gondor and his fear that his bloodline (stained by that evil man Isildur) has failed and will fail again.

I have always found the original story more noble and more heroic in the sense of a great epic. That is what LOTR has always been to me... the greatest epic adventure of all time... but that's just my opinion. I loved TTT visually as a movie... I just hate that they butchered the epic story that I had in my mind's eye.

[aragil]

Grond- I agree that in the books Aragorn was driven by destiny, had vision, and had character. But how confident and decisive did he seem at Amon Hen? Both the character in the book and the character in the movie have moments of strength and moments of weakness. I'd say they also both have plenty of character. Is PJ's Aragorn driven by destiny? It looks like his destiny is overtaking him whether he wills it or no. However, he definitely is not riding out from Rivendell with the same sense of purpose which he has in the books. PJ's Aragorn is also very noble, as has been discussed in a couple of the threads on this forum. He faces the Nazgul to save Frodo, faces the Uruk-hai to save Frodo, and at least has a noble reason for nnot claiming the throne: he is worried about abuse of power.