Analysis of Inconsistencies and Plot Holes in 'The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King'

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is widely considered an iconic film in the fantasy genre, a grand finale to the epic trilogy. However, the movie, while well-regarded, is not without its inconsistencies and plot holes—distinct from their counterparts in books and other films. This analysis delves into some of these discrepancies, exploring why they exist and how they affect the story's integrity.

1. The Witch King's Immortality Controversy

In The Lord of the Rings books, it is detailed that the Witch King is among the fingerless Nazg?l, the leader of the Nazg?l regiments. He is explicitly stated to be a man that mannish kings once called hungry ghost, who became the lieutenant of Sauron and a supreme wraith. However, the portrayal of his immortality in Return of the King movie differs significantly. The movie suggests that the Witch King was invulnerable to harm except for the High Elves of the West, or those who could call upon the Valar (the powers of the Elder Days).

The question arises: Why is the Witch King killable by every creature except male humans who had reached adulthood? This inconsistency undermines the narrative's coherence, as it suggests a plot device rather than a logical consequence of a character's background. Furthermore, it calls into question the past events in the story, like when the Nazg?l were defeated at Angrenost.

2. The Final Battles and Theoden's Survival

A significant inconsistency in the movie pertains to the mortality of King Theoden. In the book, Theoden, when felled by and healed through the healing of love's passion, is merely mortally wounded. However, in the film, he is depicted as nearly being killed and later brought to life by Gandalf. This divergence alters the stakes and tone of the battle. The additional stress on Theoden's apparent death and subsequent survival adds dramatic weight, but it also detracts from the previously more fitting narrative in the books.

3. Estel's Secret and Legolas's Protection

The relationship between Aragorn and Théoden, as well as Legolas, is another area of inconsistency. In the books, Estel (Aragorn's foster name) is known to Théoden and Legolas, who accept their relationship rather readily. However, in the film, Théoden's knowledge of Estel's true identity is established more abruptly and extensively, while Legolas's understanding and loyalty are also distinctly different. Théoden's unassuming demeanor of not knowing Estel's true identity in the book is replaced in the film with a more revealing and complex portrayal.

Legolas's portrayal in the books is one of an open-minded and curious figure, while in the film, he is depicted as more protective and confrontational towards Aragorn. This inconsistency can be attributed to the film's desire to maintain the identity of Legolas as a serious, grave character rather than the book's portrayal of him.

Concluding Analysis

While Return of the King is a visually stunning and emotionally impactful film, these inconsistencies and plot holes highlight the differences between a book's narrative and its adaptation to screen. They serve as valuable insights into the challenges of translating meticulous, complex storytelling from print to visual media. Despite these discrepancies, the film remains a crucial contribution to the Lord of the Rings canon, offering a cinematic experience that expands on and enhances the original stories.

Understanding these inconsistencies can help viewers appreciate both the strengths and the limitations of film adaptations, ensuring a deeper engagement with the source material and the art of storytelling across mediums.