A discussion at work today about the “Estel” quote in “The Return of the King” got me thinking about the internal logic of the movies. When I first saw “FOTR,” I had some problems with how the story differed from the book. It took me three viewings to begin to understand and accept the internal logic that the filmmakers had set up for the movie. Once I did, I was able to relax a bit and go with the flow of the movie itself instead of constantly saying to myself “that’s not how Tolkien wrote it.” I could see it as a different take on the same story.

I think this may be a major factor in how people feel about the movie. Can you accept a different logic, or can you not? (I feel like Jack Sparrow asking that question.) If you can’t, then you probably won’t like the movies no matter what.

Those of us who can may still object to some things, and while it may be because something or someone just looks too different from our own personal images, I think more often it’s because the filmmakers violate their own logic. (By film-makers I mean mostly PJ and Phillipa and Fran; occasionally the actors.)

I’ve come up with some of the premises that I think the film-makers were operating from that differ from Tolkien:

- A main focus is the transition of stewardship of Middle-earth from Elves to Men and the dawn of a new, bright future. Tolkien focused primarily on hobbits and on the Elves leaving, the loss of what once was.

- Aragorn does not want the kingship for himself and defers to other rulers; he has to realize that Middle-earth needs him as king. Tolkien’s Aragorn never questions his destiny or right to rule.

- Both Elrond and Aragorn don’t see Arwen’s decision as final, and both wish for her to go to Valinor. In the book Elrond is resigned to her staying and Aragorn, frankly, strikes me as a bit selfish about the whole thing.

- Theoden does not recover immediately from Saruman’s spell. Tolkien’s Theoden recovers in a matter of minutes.

I’m one of those who finds movie Faramir consistent with book Faramir. They both want their father’s approval almost above everything – but not at the cost of their consciences.

I’m sure there’s more others can think of.

To take the “Estel” quote as an example: If we accept the premise that Aragorn does not want the kingship for himself, then he needs to see that there are other, more compelling reasons other than his own ambition for him to accept his destiny. Boromir starts this process by showing him a man who is personally ambitious but also motivated by a sense of responsibility for others, a sense of duty. As he dies, Boromir asks Aragorn to take over his duty to Minas Tirith, and Aragorn agrees. But this is only a partial acceptance of his destiny. When he meets Eomer, he does not immediately claim Eomer’s allegiance, as book Aragorn does, and he bows to Theoden. At Helm’s Deep he sees that he is better fit to lead than Theoden; we can see his sense of duty expanding, as it were, to include Rohan as well as Gondor. Finally when Elrond brings Anduril to him and quotes his mother, Aragorn finally accepts that only he can lead the West against Sauron. He has finally accepted his entire destiny, and all of the steps along the way fit the logic of the original premise of the filmmakers.

He has not, however, yet come to see that his heart’s only desire – to marry Arwen – will be served by his acceptance of his destiny. That only becomes clear to him at the coronation when she shows up, and I love how Viggo shows us his wonder and then joy as he realizes this and kisses her – claiming her - in front of the entire world.

I love the movies for the most part, but what I don’t like is when the filmmakers’ own logic is violated. For instance, Gandalf. He’s the inspired leader most of the time, but then he naysays Aragorn’s plan to draw out Sauron. He has to have Aragorn tell him to look into his own heart to know if Frodo is alive at Edoras, but then at Minas Tirith he says “Frodo has passed beyond my sight” when Frodo goes into Mordor. So could he see Frodo before or not? Bugs me.