4

Sometime during the quest of Thorin's Company for Erebor, the group stops at Rivendell and stays for a few days. The whole quest takes place within the year T.A. 2941. Ten years before, Aragorn is born, and at his age of two, his father fell, where he was thereafter taken care of by Elrond.

My question is: despite Viggo Mortensen's decline of the role, is it possible that the filmmakers/studio would let Peter Jackson feature Aragorn as a ten-year-old boy in The Unexpected Journey as a cameo in the Rivendell scene, even if Aragorn is not of Hobbit-related canon?

Improve this question
12
  • 5
    I don't understand what you're asking. Could the filmmakers have included a very young Aragorn in TH:AUJ? As you say yourself, according to the books Aragorn was then ten years old and living in Rivendell, so the answer is yes. Did they have scenes including the child Aragorn? As far as I am aware, no. Also, what does "Aragorn's constant adventuring" have to do with it? It seems unlikely he was roaming the wilderness slaying orcs at the age of 10.
    – Royal Canadian Bandit
    Commented May 16, 2014 at 14:00
  • 2
    It seems like the Studio let Jackson put in or leave out just about anything he wanted to.
    – Major Stackings
    Commented May 16, 2014 at 15:14
  • 3
    @PartyKingThrandeezy: Fair enough. There is a simple answer -- Saruman and Galadriel appear in TH:AUJ but not the book The Hobbit. So in principle, other characters from LOTR could have appeared in TH:AUJ. It's rather alarming to think Peter Jackson could have made the film even longer and more rambling than it already is. ;-)
    – Royal Canadian Bandit
    Commented May 16, 2014 at 15:26
  • 1
    In all honesty Jackson's mucked with the timelines so much that he could have probably included a fully-grown younger Aragorn if he'd really wanted to. There's an interesting question in here about whether Bilbo could have met Aragorn during that time, and maybe some further editing might help bring it out more.
    – user8719
    Commented May 16, 2014 at 15:29
  • 6
    Viggo Mortenson was probably wise to decline the role of a ten-year-old Aragorn.
    – DJClayworth
    Commented May 16, 2014 at 21:01

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2

Yes, he could have appeared.

Aragorn was being fostered in Rivendell at the time Bilbo and the Dwarves visited, and the material covering this is allowed to be used in the movies, so there was absolutely nothing to stop Jackson & co from having him there.

However, you need to remember one important point. There is a third movie still to come.

On Bilbo's return journey he also visited Rivendell, as is noted in Chapter 19, the Last Stage:

It was on May the First that the two came back at last to the brink of the valley of Rivendell, where stood the Last (or the First) Homely House.

Here, Bilbo and Gandalf stay a while at Rivendell, and

When the tale of their journeyings was told, there were other tales, and yet more tales, tales of long ago, and tales of new things, and tales of no time at all, till Bilbo's head fell forward on his chest, and he snored comfortably in a corner.

Bilbo stays a week, frolics a little with the Elves, and finally leaves:

Weariness fell from him soon in that house, and he had many a merry jest and dance, early and late, with the elves of the valley. Yet even that place could not long delay him now, and he thought always of his own home. After a week, therefore, he said farewell to Elrond, and giving him such small gifts as he would accept, he rode away with Gandalf.

The point I'm making here is that just because Aragorn wasn't in the first movie, you shouldn't assume that he's not going to be in the Hobbit movies at all. The two events I quote here (tales and frolicing) provide examples of where he might have been present, if needed.

So if Jackson wants to include him as a thematic link to LotR, the third movie would seem a more logical place to have him included, so that Aragorn's story can run from the Hobbit movies to the LotR movies without interruption in the form of Bilbo's adventures.

Update - 23rd December 2014

And he was included, but in name only.

Improve this answer
8

Aragorn was born in 2931 TA, and the Hobbit spans 2940-2941.➀

Without massive computer modification of the footage, Viggo Mortensen would be unable to play the 9-10 year old Aragorn. This would be extremely expensive for what should be, at best, a cameo. Further, Mortensen is not a fan of the extensive CGI, ans so seems unlikely to be willing to do so. Further, his son was an adult and appears in the LOTR trilogy in several minor roles.➁

Aragorn's father, Arathorn, was killed when he was two - and at that point he became Elrond's fosterling. So, at the time of the Hobbit, Aragon is a young Numenorean boy living in Rivendell, and is going by the name Estel. He won't be told his true name until 2951 - a decade after the Hobbit.➀

From a script point of view, an inclusion would lack recognizability for the non-geek, due to difference of name and difference of actor. Further, the best handling of it would be a suitably young child of Viggo's - which there isn't one, and be in the nature of Elrond saying to a child in scene, "Run along, Estel." Such a fan-nod would also include material not present in what Peter Jackson is licensed to use (the Saul Zaentz Company, only has rights to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings); other such nods have been included, such as Dwarf-women having beards (from Tolkien's own notes, but not the appendices to LOTR as published).

Any larger role would be such a diversion that it would cost fans, in addition to having to pay a child actor. It would be, in short, a colossal waste of money. So, no, he really couldn't be featured even with Peter Jackson's very loose grip on Canon.

➀ http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Aragorn
➁ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10826867/Viggo-Mortensen-interview-Peter-Jackson-sacrificed-subtlety-for-CGI.html

Improve this answer
7
  • But is Aragorn not of LOTR? Just because he was not Estel in LOTR shouldn't mean he can't appear in the Hobbit movies.
    – PartyKingThrandeezy
    Commented May 16, 2014 at 16:46
  • 1
    The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen was in the appendices of LotR, and was therefore among the materials available to Jackson when he made the movies. Because that story mentions Aragorn's fostering in Rivendell, Jackson would have the right, had he the inclination, to have Estel present in Rivendell in one of the Hobbit movies.
    – Rob
    Commented May 17, 2014 at 6:06
  • ...and don't forget that this may yet happen in the third movie. Bilbo does stop in Rivendell on the way home too.
    – user8719
    Commented May 17, 2014 at 10:37
  • 2
    @RoyalCanadianBandit - that makes me think that if it's included in the third movie, it'll more likely be as an extra scene in the extended edition and just for fan gratification.
    – user8719
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 21:59
  • 2
    @JimmyShelter It's more likely to be a "non-cameo" - just a verbal reference, like "Tell young Estel I'm delayed by visitors."
    – aramis
    Commented May 19, 2014 at 16:44
5

Saruman and Galadriel appear in the film TH:AUJ, but not in the book The Hobbit. So in principle, other characters from Lord of the Rings could have appeared in TH:AUJ.

On a related note, Cate Blanchett claimed in this interview with the BBC that she wanted to play Galadriel again, and encouraged Peter Jackson to write her in. So it was the opposite of the situation with Viggo Mortensen mentioned in the question.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    never mind the cameos. They made Legolas a full blown character, why would Aragorn pose a problem?
    – terdon
    Commented May 17, 2014 at 0:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.