MovieChat Forums > The Lord of the Rings (1978) Discussion > I'm saying it...

I'm saying it...

posted 5 years ago by Ace_Spade (9601)
10 replies | jump to latest

I prefer John Hurt's Aragorn to Viggo Mortensen's. I don't mean this as a knock to Viggo, who is a marvelous actor, and who did a terrific job as Aragorn. I just prefer Hurt (plus his animation team).

This Aragorn feels more valiant, like he has a sense of humour, and more venerable than the Jackson version. The Jackson version also gets dealt a bad hand by weakening his conviction and character, as well as having to spew the line, "Let's hunt some orc!" (Easily one of the weakest bits of dialogue in the trilogy).

Goodness knows, this version has flaws aplenty (mostly, I would argue, with pacing and budget), but it has a bevvy of positives, too, and one of those positives is Aragorn. "If I wanted the Ring, I could have it. Now." I believe him.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

No.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

Well put. I'm rethinking my whole stance.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Without a doubt Hurt's is better, much better. I like Viggo, too, but not for this part. He isn't alone. Most of the Jackson LOTR's casting choices feel all wrong to me. But not in this animated film, where it captures the feel of the novel so well. I only wish they had the budget to finish what they started.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Honestly Sam, Gollum and Saruman were the only characters who I thought were cast well.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 3 years ago

See, I really like Viggo as Aragorn, and I also really like most of the casting for Jackson's LOTR. I'm completely 180 to you on that one. A lot of the choices are par or better there (McKellen?)

Hurt nails it, though, and he's so compelling as Aragorn.

I agree with you completely for the budget thing. I wish they'd given this movie a much bigger budget to accommodate the massive undertaking (and the full story) and make it all work. As it is, it's very uneven, with some elements being stellar (Hurt, the Ringwraiths) and others are awful (the Balrog, poor Sam...)

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Why would you not think that? John Hurt was infinitely better than Mortensen. I never thought Viggo was a good Aragorn.

[–] CDWard (140) a month ago

Whenever I reread the books, Aragorn speaks in John Hurt's voice, and Gandalf in John Huston's.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) a month ago

Huston did a great job as Gandalf, but I do think Ian McKellen surpassed him. I'm not criticising Huston by any means, just praising McKellen.

John Hurt really did a great job with Aragorn.

[–] CDWard (140) a month ago

It's been a while since I saw the...ahem...films, but I recall McKellen came off as rather wheezy and tired most of the time; Tolkien's Gandalf was anything but.

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) a month ago

I thought McKellen captured the wisdom of Gandalf extremely well, as well as his occasional grumpiness. Vocally, I thought he was fine. Yes, raspy sometimes, but honestly Huston sounds "older" to me. Gandalf never seemed out of breath in McKellen's performance (to me) - defying the balrog on the bridge, for example. For the extremely subtle look on his face when Frodo volunteers to take the Ring to Mordor - for that alone I give McKellen massive points. Finally, Huston isn't doing a British accent, and while this doesn't wreck his performance, it is one more point on the scales for Sir Ian.