Maybe the movie played over his uncertainty more than in the books, but I think it's just fine. .

Quite from Aragorn: "The same blood flows in my veins. The same weakness." My opinion is that it's more noble of Aragorn to NOT want the power. *shrug* Especially because that scene kinda foreshadows the one later when Frodo offers him the dreaded ring which he [Aragorn] of all people could claim out of hereditary reasons!

Johobbit, that question of mine was rhetorical.

Quite from Aragorn: "The same blood flows in my veins. The same weakness." My opinion is that it's more noble of Aragorn to NOT want the power. *shrug* Especially because that scene kinda foreshadows the one later when Frodo offers him the dreaded ring which he [Aragorn] of all people could claim out of hereditary reasons!

I agree with this. I see yalls perspective on the BookAragorn though, there's this reallllyyyyyyyyyyyy fine line. He knows it is his destiny, yet I think he is uncertain of it because he does not want to have it for the wrong reasons, which he fears he might make, and as the story progresses, he begins overcome these uncertainties.

And indeed like Lady G if anyone fully deserved the Ring, it would be Aragorn.

Edit: ( Oh my goodness! A short post from johobbit! oh my cow oh my cow! *starts hyperventilating at the shock of a short post* )

My opinion is that it's more noble of Aragorn to NOT want the power.

I don't follow this reasoning; why is it more noble to not want one's responsibility?

Aragorn's not just some guy off the street thrown into this huge role. He was born to it; it is his right as well as his duty. It should not be taken up grudgingly — he SHOULD want it! So it's not noble for Aragorn to want his rightful power so that he can do good with it? It's better to leave it to someone else, to shirk?

And if you look at Aragorn as a Christ-figure, the idea becomes even more problematic. Christ desires what is His right: all power and glory and honor. Would it be "more noble" of Him not to want it?

I do recommend a reread of the book for you, Lady Galadriel. The films are great, but they have some crucial changes and deviations. If you want the real story, the original, untampered-with source, that's where you have to go. When you watch the movies, you are not getting Tolkien's undiluted genius. You're getting PJ's re-imaginings (sometimes well done for the purposes of the film; many times less so). But Tolkien remains the authority on his own work. I'll respect how he wrote his characters and story, and defend it if need be.

TOM, thanks for your review! And that's fascinating about the Ecthelion-Thorongil relationship; I don't remember having read that before.

My opinion is that it's more noble of Aragorn to NOT want the power.

I don't follow this reasoning; why is it more noble to not want one's responsibility?

The reason I say that is because he seems in the movie to be afraid of misusing the power. As in the movie:
Arwen: Why do you fear the past? You are not Isildur himself, you are his heir.
Aragorn: The same blood flows in my veins, the same weakness.
Arwen: You will face it, and you will overcome it. The Shadow does not hold sway--not over you, and not over me.

And indeed he does. He does not fall so weak as in to take the Ring when Frodo offers it to him!

Aragorn's not just some guy off the street thrown into this huge role. He was born to it; it is his right as well as his duty. It should not be taken up grudgingly — he SHOULD want it! So it's not noble for Aragorn to want his rightful power so that he can do good with it? It's better to leave it to someone else, to shirk?

Very well stated, wisewoman! But what about Boromir? Why should they not give the Ring to Gondor, so that it could be used for good, to fight against Sauron? Well, because they could be corrupted and become like Sauron!

And if you look at Aragorn as a Christ-figure, the idea becomes even more problematic. Christ desires what is His right: all power and glory and honor. Would it be "more noble" of Him not to want it?

Aragorn is not Christ; Dunadan or not he knows he is fallible.

I do recommend a reread of the book for you, Lady Galadriel.

Don't worry, I will...eventually...

The films are great, but they have some crucial changes and deviations. If you want the real story, the original, untampered-with source, that's where you have to go. When you watch the movies, you are not getting Tolkien's undiluted genius.

Of course not! How could anyone match Tolkien's genius? *marvels* I think when one watches the movie they are not looking for a character to simply be assumed as very strong and mature already, they are looking for the person to become mature through the events. Besides, I think in the book is where one will look for the depth in a character, most moviegoers are searching for action; and that is what the filmmakers are trying to please. (I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, I'm stating what seems to be the case these days.)

But I really don't think PJ misinterpreted it too badly. The meaning of the story came through, and Aragorn became King in the end.

But Tolkien remains the authority on his own work. I'll respect how he wrote his characters and story, and defend it if need be.

Once again, of course he is! I am not by any means saying that the movies are better than the books (far from it, how could anyone match Tolkien?)! But the movies are still so popular today they seem to have pleased the majority.

And good for you to do so (to defend it). It is always interesting to see other people's viewpoints so that we can refresh our own. We both carry very valid points.

I also wanted to address something from a previous post here:

Don't they eventually raise up over those weaknesses in the movie too?

Eh, not really. Aragorn is mastered by his fear when he looks into the Palantír, and though everything works out happily in the end for him, it is not because of him "raising up over his weakness."

Same with Gandalf — far from his authoritative position in the books, he cowers and falls before the Nazgul, and the Witch-King breaks Gandalf's staff . Horrible, horrible, horrible. How does this demonstrate Gandalf "raising up over his weakness"?

Frodo succumbs to Gollum's emotional manipulation, allowing a completely non-credible character to influence his decisions, and because of that he sends Sam away. Frodo never comes to a verbalized declaration of his mistake. Lucky for him, Sam decides to come back. But none of this demonstrates Frodo "raising up over his weakness."

The reason I say that is because he seems in the movie to be afraid of misusing the power.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that he says "I do not want this power. I have never wanted it." It makes him out to be such a wimp, so terrified of messing up. He would rather pass the buck to someone else than face up to his own responsibility and *gasp* actually like it!

And indeed he does. He does not fall so weak as in to take the Ring when Frodo offers it to him!

Right, and that's cool. But what exactly is it that Aragorn doesn't want, that you say he is more noble for not wanting? The power that comes with his kingship, right? We aren't talking about him wanting the Ring right now, so while what you say about that is true, it isn't really relevant.

But what about Boromir? Why should they not give the Ring to Gondor, so that it could be used for good, to fight against Sauron? Well, because they could be corrupted and become like Sauron!

Again, let's be clear what power it is that Aragorn doesn't want. It is not the power of the Ring that we are talking about; it's the power that comes with being a king. Aragorn's reluctance has to do with taking up his rightful place as king of Gondor, not with taking the Ring.

But if you already knew that and are arguing from that position, according to your argument Aragorn should not want the power that comes with being a king, because it might corrupt him? How then will anything be ruled, if all the noble people refuse the responsibility of just power because they are scared it will corrupt them?

Aragorn is not Christ; Dunadan or not he knows he is fallible.

No, he isn't Christ, but he is a Christ-figure (as are Gandalf and even Frodo to a lesser extent). That means that there are elements of his character that can be connected to those of Christ.

Being fallible has nothing to do with wanting to take on one's responsibility rather than being forced into it grudgingly. My point is that it is not "less noble" for a good character to desire power, because a good character will desire it for worthy reasons. Desiring rightful power is not evil in itself; it all depends on one's motivation.

Don't worry, I will...eventually...

I would LOVE to hear your thoughts when you do! I'm rereading right now (listening to it on audiobook for the first time, actually) and I do so annually.

Besides, I think in the book is where one will look for the depth in a character, most moviegoers are searching for action; and that is what the filmmakers are trying to please. (I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, I'm stating what seems to be the case these days.)

Well, I'll take it a step further and say it's a bad thing to seek only mindless action . To each his own, of course, but I think it "more noble" to seek out good characters that one can learn from and admire.

It is always interesting to see other people's viewpoints so that we can refresh our own.

Indeed! I love a good friendly debate, and when it's on one of my all-time favorite books, how can I resist?

All righty, I've done a wee bit of reading because I wanted to know exactly who Aragorn got the Elven genes from, 'cause even though I've read it before, I've just plumb forgotten. Aragorn is a descendant of Elendil and Elendil descended from Ëarendil and Elwing, both half-elven: Tuor (man) and Idril (elf) begat Ëarendil; Elwing's grandparents were Beren (man) and Lúthien (elf). So, yeah ... and cool!

And Eärendil and Elwing had two sons - Elrond and Elros. They were given the choice whether to be Elf or Man, and Elrond chose to be of Elf-kind, whereas Elros chose to be mortal.

Elros was then given the kingship of Numenor, which was an island that was made as a reward for those Men who had been faithful in the wars against Morgoth. He was given a long life, four or five hundred years, and his line was the royal line of Numenor. One of his descendants (branched off from the main line) was Elendil, whose family were the only ones of the royal line to survive the fall of Numenor.

So Aragorn and Arwen are descended from two brothers - one of the brothers is Aragorn's great-great-30++times-great-grandfather, while the other brother is Arwen's father. This makes Aragorn and Arwen first cousins 30++ times removed.

Isn't that how he had that power over the athelas plant in the book, because he was Elvish?

I thought the main reason is because of his Númenorean and kingly blood-line ("The hands of the king are the hands of a healer"), which, as I wrote above, includes Elvish waaay back, but I don't believe that wasn't his main 'call to fame'.

I think the reason is that he is the rightful king. Even though he hasn't claimed his throne yet - at least he is the rightful heir to the throne.

As I said, you (wisewoman) continue to make good points. I don't have answers for all questions, but I still think the filmmakers had legitimate reasons for making certain changes.

I certainly don't like Gandalf being defeated by the Witch-King (He's not a grey-area character like Aragorn, where we wonder if he is human or a superhero, he's a superhero and could still be put as such!). And it would have been nice indeed for Frodo to apologize to Sam!

Well, I'll take it a step further and say it's a bad thing to seek only mindless action . To each his own, of course, but I think it "more noble" to seek out good characters that one can learn from and admire.

Indeed, yet that is what drives movies today. Almost all books are better in that regard. Time to head for them (although I say that the movie characters can still be admired, even if sadly to a lesser extent). I think most moviegoers are going to have fun.

Being fallible has nothing to do with wanting to take on one's responsibility rather than being forced into it grudgingly. My point is that it is not "less noble" for a good character to desire power, because a good character will desire it for worthy reasons. Desiring rightful power is not evil in itself; it all depends on one's motivation.

Exactly! I imagine he does not want to have the wrong motivation. What would we ourselves do in his situation?

Indeed! I love a good friendly debate, and when it's on one of my all-time favorite books, how can I resist?

Again, I agree. It's very stimulating!

Ah, the fun imagining a debate with the scriptwriters!

Well, although it wasn't true to the book. In the books he was also a little wimpy and slightly annoying. So, in a way, although he didn't reject Sam, this described his character better. I don't know why but I never liked Frodo.

If you don't mind me talking a little here... In contrast, I never liked Sam I'm probably bound to get people saying "WHAT??" to me here. But I just liked Frodo better. I guess it began because I thought Sam was way too overprotective, being nothing more than a servant at the beginning. In ROTK, it turns more touching because he's obviously more than a servant; and yes, I think he turns out to be the hero in the end. I think I may perhaps be more like Frodo in one respect; that is, the one on where he pities what the ring did to Gollum.
I still think Frodo is much stronger in character in the book. The movies dramatized the personalities and thus made them weaker. (Well, with the exception of Sam, I think!)

You don't like Sam?!
I don't think I've ever heard of someone not liking Sam. I actually think that it was good that he was so protective, otherwise Frodo probably would have gotten in a lot of trouble before he even left the Shire. I do, however think that Frodo was good to try to help Smeagol. But there comes a time where you've got to realize that he's beyond help. I actually think Frodo was weaker in character in the book. But that's just me.

You don't like Sam?!
I don't think I've ever heard of someone not liking Sam. I actually think that it was good that he was so protective, otherwise Frodo probably would have gotten in a lot of trouble before he even left the Shire.

*bursts into random laughter at the emoticons, and then sobers up* Yes, I know it's weird for me to not like Sam. Being overprotective isn't such a bad thing in LOTR since it turns out Frodo needs a lot of protecting I just know if I had been Frodo I would have been saying, "Give me some space!" After all, Sam's just a servant in the beginning. But then it turns touching in ROTK because you see Sam won't give up on him, no matter what.

I do, however think that Frodo was good to try to help Smeagol. But there comes a time where you've got to realize that he's beyond help. I actually think Frodo was weaker in character in the book. But that's just me.

In the books and movies, I think Sam, unlike Frodo, is privileged to hearing Gollum's conversations with himself, right? Because Sam's thoughts are not becoming clouded with the Ring, and because he is present in more scenes, he can see Gollum's treachery more than Frodo.
In contrast, I pity Gollum, I really do. I say that Frodo is right in the movie when he says "You don't know what the ring did to him, Sam." I would probably try to help him myself.
You think Frodo is weaker in the book? How so?

*bursts into random laughter at the emoticons, and then sobers up* Yes, I know it's weird for me to not like Sam. Being overprotective isn't such a bad thing in LOTR since it turns out Frodo needs a lot of protecting I just know if I had been Frodo I would have been saying, "Give me some space!" After all, Sam's just a servant in the beginning. But then it turns touching in ROTK because you see Sam won't give up on him, no matter what.

I don't know. I think Frodo might have appreciated Sam doing that because it strengthened their friendship and he had someone he could trust and confide in.

In the books and movies, I think Sam, unlike Frodo, is privileged to hearing Gollum's conversations with himself, right? Because Sam's thoughts are not becoming clouded with the Ring, and because he is present in more scenes, he can see Gollum's treachery more than Frodo.

True, Sam did have that privilege. But, after all they'd been through together Frodo should have at least been more wary of him in my opinion.

In contrast, I pity Gollum, I really do. I say that Frodo is right in the movie when he says "You don't know what the ring did to him, Sam." I would probably try to help him myself.

I pity Gollum as well. I would even try to help him. Frodo was right to try. But, as I said earlier. There comes a time when you have to realize that he's beyond any hope of redemption.

You think Frodo is weaker in the book? How so?

If you read through the books you actually see that Frodo is pretty wimpy and slightly selfish.

Aragorn was completely human, in a way; and he wasn't, all at the same time.

Great description. I'm not the type to go looking for Christological references behind every bush, but does this remind anyone of somebody else?

The changes to Aragorn's character in the movies never bothered me as much as they did others (indeed, I don't think I even noticed them until a couple of years ago! ) but I've been thinking during my current reread how gratuitous they really are. There are portions of the book where Aragorn acts very conflicted and uncertain, but the uncertainty is NEVER about his duty or destiny. I think if the filmmakers had stuck closer to the book but kept Mortensen, who is very good at engaging the audience's sympathies, they would have no problem appeasing both purists and newcomers who need a character they can relate to.

Also, having recently read Beowulf (and performed scenes from it at our school's Medieval Faire ), I can't help but see some similarities between that poem's protagonist and our very own King of Gondor. Both are warriors motivated by a strong sense of honor, both are incredibly moral men in dark times, and both can be a little hard for modern audience to "get." Hmmm.

If you read through the books you actually see that Frodo is pretty wimpy and slightly selfish.

I'm reading through the books right now and I see no such thing. Do you have any examples?

If you read through the books you actually see that Frodo is pretty wimpy and slightly selfish.

I'm reading through the books right now and I see no such thing. Do you have any examples?

I read through TTT (right after I saw the movies actually) only about six weeks ago. I did so mainly to look for big changes made in the plot by the filmmakers because I hadn't really noticed any during the movie. I paid attention to Frodo especially because I had heard before that he seemed to be weaker in the movie, and this was when I started noticing just what seems to be "richness" of the book characters compared to the movie ones.
For example, something occurred right after Sam and Frodo met Gollum. Sadly, I don't own a copy of the books (they're at the library), so my best recollection is what follows. It seemed to Sam that Frodo became great and tall and Gollum became cowardly (kind of like the reference we were all talking to about Aragorn at the Argonath). Instead of just saying as he does in the movie, "The Ring is treacherous; will hold you to your word," he thunders something like, "Do you know what you are doing?! The Ring will bind you!!!"
Sorry I can't remember it any better ...but it was something really close... In any case, I really don't remember Frodo being weaker in the book.

Yet another Tolkien book for everyone's reading list: Meditations on Middle-Earth. It's a collection of essays by writers who credit Tolkien as a factor in their careers.

They touch on topics such as the purity of characters like Aragorn, Faramir and Sam; the plight of Frodo; the purpose of the Quest.

On the comments on the super-purity of characters, I was reminded of the bane of fledgling writers: the Mary Sue Self-Insert Disorder.

{not from the book, but this is the standard internet definition}

MARY SUE (n.):

1. A variety of story, first identified in the fan fiction community, but quickly recognized as occurring elsewhere, in which normal story values are grossly subordinated to inadequately transformed personal wish-fulfillment fantasies, often involving heroic or romantic interactions with the cast of characters of some popular entertainment.

2. A distinctive type of character appearing in these stories who represents an idealized version of the author.

3. A cluster of tendencies and characteristics commonly found in Mary Sue-type stories.

4. A body of literary theory, originally generated by the fanfic community, which has since spread to other fields (f.i., professional SF publishing) because it's so darn useful. The act of committing Mary Sue-ism is sometimes referred to as "self-insertion."

Samples include the fanfic character who joins the Starship Enterprise, impresses Kirk, sings as well as Uhura, is as smart as Spock, plays well with others especially aliens, and all the men of her choice fall in love with her and all the women are happy for her and not at all jealous. The other characters end up turning into something they're not, in order to make room for the new person. Mary Sue characters warp reality.

A lot of times when people complain about book-Faramir being too good to be true, they are accusing the character of Mary Sue-ism without knowing there's a word for it.

Same thing for book-Aragorn. Having said that, an acquaintance of mine better pegged it as Strider being relatable but Aragorn being remote and all Founding-Father/George Washington, workmanlike in personality and in storytelling technique. That is, Aragorn's story is skilled rather than fun.

Sam gets the most Mary Sue-ism. The qualities a Christian should strive for, he has in abundance, enough that people get upset by it. Even his faults are called "too good to be true": too humble, too self-sacrificing, too loyal, and so forth.

Now these tend to be qualities that a newbie writer dump on a character, to the point that the writer loses perspective. That makes it hard to teach the writer, or even for friends to give feedback.

Teacher (sensing over-identification) : "Maybe you should give this character some human weaknesses, some faults."

Student writer (wailing): "But I can't think of any!"

...

Teacher #2: "No one will be able to relate to a character who is too perfect."

Student #2: "She's not perfect at all! She's too giving. She gives too much to her friends and charity and it's not good for her."

...

Mean kid in class: "Wow, your character is better at everything than anyone. Congratulations on creating such a thoroughly unlikeable character!"

Even Jesus was relatable. Especially Jesus. Mary Sues, not so much.

But are Faramir, Aragorn, and Sam really Mary Sues? In the hands of an inexperienced writer, they would have been. They do have some personal qualities that Tolkien admired, but not necessarily enough that he wanted to be them.

Tolkien did admit that Faramir was the character that came from his heart. Originally Boromir didn't have a brother. But Tolkien found Faramir intruding into his daydreams until the character took up residence in the story. Faramir would be a Mary Sue if he were badly written, but since he was well-written, it's okay for us to admit that this is Tolkien's self-insert character. Especially since Tolkien said so. This is the person he most wanted to emulate. If Tolkien could have seen what the Peter Jackson Two Towers film did to Faramir, I think Tolkien would have been crushed. That was his baby; that was him. That character was a part of him, or at least a part that he hoped was part of him.

Aragorn is a figure of Tolkien's faith. Like many Catholics of his day he retained a nostalgia for the myth of "the good king" who would be Christ's representative on earth. So it is not surprising that people see Christ-like qualities in Aragorn. Tolkien put them there.

Sam's a little more complex. Yes, he definitely shows signs of being "too" humble, "too" devoted. But it is important to note that these qualities become dominant in him when Sam and Frodo meet Gollum. The Sam of FotR was rather different: a homebody, a spy for Merry and Pippin (and therefore a tattletale), occasionally a bumbler, and (unlike in the film) Sam had made up his mind to propose to Rose Cotton the night before Gandalf caught Sam beneath the window. (In the final chapter, Sam says, "She didn't like my going away last fall. But I hadn't spoken, so there wasn't anything she could do about it. And now I've spoken.")

But in The Two Towers & Return of the King, Sam becomes so fiercely, ferociously, unrelentingly "good" because he has become a part of Frodo's personality, just as Gollum embodies part of Frodo's personality. As Frodo stops talking, Sam and Gollum do the talking for him. In a very real sense, they have grabbed hold of one arm each, and whoever pulls the bigger piece of the wishbone "wins." And Frodo loses, because regardless of who wins, he thinks he can't live through that.

As long as Sam is part of Frodo's personality, Sam himself cannot be whole. So Frodo leaves, leaving Sam to get on with his real life.

Of course we put "good" in quotes because closer inspection shows Sam has serious flaws. It's not the annoying ones, like being so aware of his lower-class servant role that he feels unworthy to use the Ring. (Fortunately Tolkien redeems the scene by having Sam say, "Anyhow, these visions are only a trick for Sauron to catch me.") Rather, Sam's treatment of Gollum on the steps of Cirith Ungol, and his ongoing insults and casual cruelties -- not to mention his initial desire to tie up Gollum and leave him to die -- show a character with a most unpraiseworthy tenacity to hold grudges. This is a character who would wince at Jesus' parable of the king who forgave the debts of two servants but one servant wouldn't forgive the other.

Frodo's plight is kind of interesting. We say that he had Christ-like qualities because he tried to carry the Ring (sin) to its destruction. Frodo failed, because he is not Christ. Frodo didn't even climb the mountain himself. Sam carried him. (Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry Jesus' cross, but did anyone carry Jesus?)

A realist would say that Frodo had no chance of fulfilling the Quest on his own. (If we could save ourselves we wouldn't need Christ, right?) In fact an essayist in Meditations argues that Frodo's purpose wasn't really to destroy the Ring. Oh, it had to be destroyed, and Frodo was chosen to try, but the Ring was meant to be destroyed, and not by its owner. The essayist argues that Frodo's real purpose is to test whether Middle-Earth should continue. (This is also why Frodo didn't just ask an eagle to fly him to Mount Doom to throw the Ring in.) As Frodo wanders, he meets and tests a variety of beings from a variety of species. Gandalf, Elrond, and Aragorn know what the Ring can do, and refuse it. Galadriel refuses, but not before "proceeding to scare the snot out of Frodo." Faramir rashly refuses the Ring before he knows what he is promising, then decides to keep the oath for the oath's sake. The Dwarves of Erebor know that the Baggins family has Sauron's ring but refuse to tell Sauron where to find it, even under death threats. Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir want it, but only Boromir repents of this mistake. Sam has seen what the Ring did to Gollum and to Frodo, and tries to hold on to the Ring under the guise of "doing the right thing," of not burdening Frodo with it anymore. But Sam coughs it up immediately when Frodo calls him a thief.

Sam is loyal to Frodo, Gollum to the Ring, and Frodo is loyal to the ideal of the Ring's destruction. Frodo fails, is crushed beneath the weight of sin -- yet he is spared because of behaving in a different Christ-like way: by showing mercy to Gollum. Because Frodo showed mercy, Frodo received mercy. Because Frodo spared Gollum, Gollum was able to join them at Mount Doom and did what no one else could have done. The littlest lord of the ring felled the greatest. Evil destroyed itself.

Books!

I'm reading through the books right now and I see no such thing. Do you have any examples?

I can't think of anything in particular right now but just keep reading them and you see that he can be really annoying.

Great defense of book Aragon here, wisewoman.

Oh, and btw, I wasn't thrilled over Arwen's expanded role, anyway. I realize she had to figure in the movies more, otherwise we'd forget about her but to have her come nigh unto death because of the 'evil that now spread from Mordor'?

I rather liked it because it was an expanded female role . I think it turned a little unnatural because when you see her come to rescue Frodo you don't immediately figure on her suddenly having a very important role (or at least I don't figure on it).

I actually did forget about Arwen when I first read (actually heard) the books. I totally missed the hint that the she and Aragorn were romantically involved. I do and I don’t mind her having a bigger role in the movie. I like the idea that Aragorn though of her on the journey but most of the ways they did were ridiculous. Aragorn: This is a dream. Arwen: Then, it is a good dream. I agree that having her come near death was too much. I don’t think she should have an expanded role because it is politically correct for females to have expanded roles. However, I like the idea of bringing in things from the appendix. I like the scene where Aragorn says something about thinking that he had strayed into a dream because that is mentioned in the appendix. I would have liked the flashbacks to give Aragorn’s back history, perhaps when he first saw her, his reaction when Elrond told him his lineage (proved he acted like he did in the book), his discussion with Elrond where Elrond tells him that he will only allow the marriage if he becomes King of Gondor, etc. Then Aragorn would have already accepted his destiny and have the additional motive of being able to marry Arwen. The other way around seems so shallow. In the movie it seems that he only takes on the responsibility because Arwen is dying. Since I am on the topic of Aragorn, I’ll add my opinion to the discussion of “power.”

Aragorn's not just some guy off the street thrown into this huge role. He was born to it; it is his right as well as his duty. It should not be taken up grudgingly — he SHOULD want it! So it's not noble for Aragorn to want his rightful power so that he can do good with it? It's better to leave it to someone else, to shirk?

I agree with wisewoman.
Power really shouldn’t be the focus. Sure, it comes with being the king, but it should not be what defines the role. The king’s job is to do what is best for his people and protect them to the best of his ability. It is a responsibility and since it is an inherited job, it really should not be turned down. I really dislike the tendency to “weaken” characters, especially in LotR. There was already so much doubt in the books yet they had to add even more. Will Aragorn take on his responsibility? Will Theoden help Gondor? Will Faramir let Frodo and Sam go? Will Arwen live? Will Treebeard help? Will Éomer return? People have said that the character changes show internal conflict and make the characters more human. However, on the other hand, what does it really show? For the most part, people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments. Aragorn doesn’t want the responsibility of being king; Theoden doesn’t want to honor the commitment of his ancestors to help Gondor; Éomer leaves Rohan; and Treebeard isn’t being a very good shepherd of his trees. Shouldn't movies show to some extent positive character traits too? If I want stories about people not wanting to honor commitments or take on their responsibilities, I just have to look around me. Not one of the characters in LotR is infallible and doubtless. As Tolkien wrote them, this is clear. Isn’t it rather the point in Fantasy and King Arthur type stories to have noble characters? Don’t we want to read / see some characters that we can use as role models? I think Tolkien’s characters can show that no matter how big, small, powerful, wise, or noble a person is they can still make mistakes, doubt themselves, and change. Not one of the main characters came out of the books unchanged. Some learned more than others, but they all learned something.

I read through TTT (right after I saw the movies actually) only about six weeks ago. I did so mainly to look for big changes made in the plot by the filmmakers because I hadn't really noticed any during the movie.

What!?! My first comment after seeing TTT in theaters was, “I needn’t have read the book.” (or something like that). Most of the time when watching movies based on books I read the books right before watching to movie so I can compare. I was actually reading TTT on the way to the theater if I remember correctly. It was so different from the book. I was going to explain more but my post has already gotten very long, and it is dinnertime. I’ll be back with more to say.