I know the film makers and Luke Evans have worried about an Aragorn stereo type but I think that is entirely needless. In Tolkien's world he is from the tribes of Men who lived in the vales of the Anduin in the 2nd and 3rd Age and would be "related" to the Eorlingas. They are not of the houses of the Edain. For Bard to remind you culturally of Eomer would have made a good deal of sense and the poor folk of Lake Town do remind you of the poor folk of Rohan.

In terms of his character placement he has a home, children and an occupation and is resigned to it. Aragorn had a destiny both book and film though the film tried to complicate his feelings about it.

What makes Bard entirely different to Aragorn is he has a specific relationship, because of his family history, with Smaug. There is a weight of guilt and yet unfair guilt laid upon him which the Master uses against him.

That guilt is manifest in his reaction to the Dwarves journey he doesn't want to revisit it. In the end he is an ordinary man doing extra ordinary things and his killing Smaug is an Arthur moment it sanctifies his right to lead and re established the Line of Girion made more noble because it was done with out any sense of ambition just because he had to. With Legolas in attendance by the Lake who had lived through all the years of this history he was the perfect one to recognise sanction and endorse his Kingship by the people. It would have been in keeping with the heroic world of Tolkien and would have taken a few minutes what the film repeated over and over again through action.

I thought the addition of Bain and in the specific scene was an excellent way to re in force that sense of the restored family re sanctified by their action. Post Lakeside its all noise for me. I loved Bard and Bain for what they did for their people and I thought the Master Alfrid got their comeuppance at the same time stop and move on Mr Jackson.

One scene which i am really looking toward to seeing again is that one between Thorin and Bard either side of the barricade. I will ignore Thorins promise to Bard because its in the previous film but for me Bard does not need to be contextualised by Alfrid at this point in the story, it is done brilliantly in his exchange with Thorin and reinforced by Bilbo. Bard wants help for his family and those whom he is responsible for whereas Thorin has become Smaug like and simply wants to hoard the gold unto himself.

Ironically I actually think I have thought more about that scene since watching the movie because I found myself distracted by the noises off i refer to. Being open minded when i have my final viewing in the cinema I will give your line of thought a go.

and I am sorry but your second paragraph seems to be completely over thinking this. Thorin is wrong thats why Bilbo confronts him. The reason why Thorin behaves so badly is because the treasure of Erebor is tainted with the dragon sickness.

In the entire arc of Bard there isn't one shred of evidence of ambition or entitlement there is alway concern for his children and in a more general sense the down trodden of Lake Town.

When Bard rides to Erebor the audience is completely with him they do not need this endless reassurance of his motives. Alfrid is superfluous and I believe the real reason he was added in pick ups is nothing so complicated as you suggest but to provide some humour. Phillippa Boyens said in the commentary to DOS they loved Ryans work with Stephen and there will be more of the same humour.

I will however consider all of this as my final viewing unfolds I just know my instinct on previous viewings was why and why so dumb Bard.

Just one addition and then I will let this go. We have all this positioning for Bard through some believe Alfrid and yet there isn't even enough time in the movie to formally show that post battle Bard will become the restored King which is crucial to the history of the North.