|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Nov 11 2012, 6:47pm
Post #51 of 61
(968 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You can't be talking about me surely
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
as I noted earlier I am certainly no purist or I wouldn't enjoy the movies to the extent I do, and consider some of the changes Sir PJ made essential to a successful movie series. I find it disturbing that it is the so called purists who tend not to get personal when discussing Tolkien but the same courtesy is rarely extended from others.
How interesting you find Aragorn was not an issue I was commenting on, what I did comment on was the fact that you referred to him as stuck up and the fact that Tolkien wrote otherwise, which I think is very relevant to answering the question in the OP. For this I take it I am labellled a snarky purist, well done to you.
(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 11 2012, 6:53pm)
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 11 2012, 6:57pm
Post #52 of 61
(1014 views)
Shortcut
|
Trying to understand why these characters are beloved ("I just don't understand what makes a relatively static character so interesting to you") and berating someone for liking them are two very different things. No one in in this thread has done the latter. We're all making our arguments in a civil manner, and there's no reason to feel insulted. Furthermore, these aren't "strong negative opinions" against Tolkien's characters - I think everyone here obviously loves Tolkien's work; we just disagree on some of the decisions he made, which is healthy to do. I, personally, am just trying to justify some of the changes made in the movies, which I happen to think are perfectly valid.
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Nov 11 2012, 7:42pm
Post #53 of 61
(977 views)
Shortcut
|
if yours was a reply to my last post, just look back a couple more posts in the thread, the words snarky purist are used by another, I am assuming this is at least in part directed at myself.
I find Aragorn interesting because of who he is, I do not see the need for someone to change during the course of a story for them to be interesting. I am not saying change doesn't add to the interest of a character, but I am also saying it is not always necessary. If it is seen as always necessary that is what I find predictable as an method of storytelling.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Doriath
Nov 11 2012, 8:19pm
Post #54 of 61
(980 views)
Shortcut
|
Though I can see why the following statement does come across as a judgment about people's taste:
I just don't understand what makes a relatively static character so interesting to you
It's subtle, and I don't think you mean to be insulting. But for people who have strong reasons for enjoying Tolkien's varying modes of characterization, it can seem like a judgment.
|
|
|
macfalk
Doriath
Nov 11 2012, 9:39pm
Post #55 of 61
(979 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wasn't calling you it specifically
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In fact, the post was not even directed towards you, I replied to another poster.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 12 2012, 2:13am
Post #56 of 61
(952 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sorry, I did not mean to come across that way
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I probably should have worded that differently.
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 12 2012, 2:19am
Post #58 of 61
(932 views)
Shortcut
|
Ahhh, ok, I understand your point, and it's a very valid one. In fact, I even agree to some extent. Maybe it comes across as slightly formulaic with these adaptations because, instead of changing characters completely, the writers attempted to insert roadblocks as a way of earning the character traits from the book. That almost always involved reversals. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that I like to see more than a dominant character trait. For example, Gollum doesn't really change as a character throughout the events of LOTR, but there are so many sides to him that it keeps things fresh.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Doriath
Nov 12 2012, 3:05am
Post #59 of 61
(946 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But too many character arcs in an ensemble
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If often a recipe for story-telling disaster.
Tolkien was right to center the character journeys on the hobbits. It makes for a much more coherent story. The rest of the characters are merely passing through their story.
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Menegroth
Nov 12 2012, 3:28am
Post #60 of 61
(935 views)
Shortcut
|
at least in the movies, TTT and ROTK become just as much Aragorn's story as Frodo's. In the book there is a bit more going on as far as the people Aragorn interacts with or travels with, but in the films they zoom in on his character for the "other half" of the story. I'm pretty sure movie-only audiences would identify him as the second most important character next to Frodo. They cut away to him so often that it would almost be strange not to have some sort of character journey associated with him. But no, not every character needs or should have an arc. Arcs don't even need to be resolved to be poignant - I think it's just more interesting to see them struggling and working toward something.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Doriath
Nov 12 2012, 3:59am
Post #61 of 61
(1232 views)
Shortcut
|
Though I do think book Aragorn certainly struggled and worked toward something. 
|
|
|
|
|
