Quote:
Originally Posted by Morthoron
It tells me that the director was more interested in special effects than in intertextual integrity, and took absurd liberties with the original story and offered a plot point that the author in no way intended.
|
I don't think it was so much for special effects, but I did notice a significant departure (in the film) in this instance and others related to the same problem. In the third film Jackson opted to emphasize the leadership qualities of Aragorn at the expense of Gandalf. I think this was done for cinematic effect (in the story, not special effects) in order to make Aragorn seem more "kingly." In the book it was always Gandalf who knew the right thing to do, but in the third film all of a sudden Gandalf was unsure, almost despairing, and it was Aragorn who was saying no, we have to attack the Black Gate to give Frodo his chance. In the novel it was the other way around: it was Aragorn who ridiculed trying to attack Mordor with such a small force. He called it a farce, a joke. It was Gandalf who was the clear leader of all the allied forces at that point, dictating what had to be done, and Aragorn was like, "I sure hope you're right."
Jackson turned that relationship around in the third firm. I had already noticed by the end of the second film (of the theatrical release) that Aragorn did not seem all that much of a leader at all. He was
too reluctant a leader, certainly not kingly, and I was puzzled in the third film where all this kingly quality and wisdom came from all of a sudden, as Gandalf took second fiddle. It was a little better when the extended versions came out and a little more background for Aragorn and his motivations came forth, but in
Return of the King Jackson still had to pull the old switcheroo, lessening Gandalf and magnifying Aragorn, to give his ascension to the throne the cinematic punch--and justification--it needed.