From: briancanada71@yahoo.com
On 5/24/2014 12:31 PM, Paul S. Person wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 20:12:50 -0500, No One In Particular
> wrote:
>
>
> Sounds a lot like Sam's rumination on the Great Stories: characters
> enter them, characters leave them, but the Story goes on.
>
Agreed. I thought that as I was typing. But, Sam is the everyman
character. He is the closest thing to the common man represented by the
Fellowship. All of the others were moved by grander motivations. (With
the questionable exceptions of Merry and Pippin.)
>> I think it is supposed to make the protagonist more relatable to the
>> common viewing audience, most of whom are not descended from ancient
>> kings in an unbroken line of father to son. We think...
>
> This presupposes that Aragorn is "the protoganist", that is, that the
> story of /LOTR/ is the story of how Aragorn married Arwen and became
> King of Gondor. Is that /really/ the story of the book? If not, if
> Aragorn's story is secondary to the story of the book, then it really
> doesn't matter if he is a spineless slacker (in the film, Arwen plays
> Aragorn's spine, because he doesn't have one) who gets maneuvered by
> adults into getting a job instead of a steadfast Heir who has spent,
> what, the last 40 years trying to defeat Sauron and become King of
> Gondor so that he can wed Arwen. All that matters is that he do in the
> film a few of the things that he did in the book:
>
Fair enough. Aragorn was the example I used, but you are correct, he is
not the primary protagonist. But I maintain that the changes in his
character, as well as many of the others, were still made as an attempt
to make those characters more accessible to the average moviegoer.
Brian
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
