I know what you’re thinking, and no, I’m not talking about The Hobbit movies. I’m talking about the OTHER Lord of the Rings movies, as in Arthur Rankin and Jules Bass’ The Hobbit (1977) and Return of the King (1980) as well as Ralph Bakshi’s Lord of the Rings (1978). What? You’ve never heard of them? Well, to be fair, they aren’t really talked about now. It’s not because they’re bad. In fact, they’re actually pretty decent, but because of the far more obvious reason…they are stuck in the shadow of Peter Jackson and HIS Lord of the Rings movies. 

Now, LOTR has been talked about to death at this point, but it really has everything you could want. Great characters, fantastic moments, engaging storylines, and overall remains as THE high fantasy series. When it comes to adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s world, it’s no surprise that the ones most people instantly think of are the Peter Jackson movies. They’re not 100% accurate, but they come pretty dang close to perfectly capturing the feeling of Middle Earth. They were critically and commercially successful, won many awards (including best picture at the Oscars for Return of the King (2003), and became instant classics in cinema. Because of this absolute success story, though, there has been a change to the representation of Lord of the Rings. I joked about it, but the Peter Jackson films have set the standard for not just adapting the story but also the look of the world. Look at any piece of media related to the series that’s been released since Jackson’s films, and I guarantee you most, if not all of them use the look of the world and designs from the Jackson films. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, far from it, but I find it interesting that this one trilogy completely set the rules on how this universe is supposed to look. This is what led me to watch the 70s animated films. I wanted to see versions of Middle Earth that existed before Jackson adapted the books. I wanted to see how other artists envisioned the rich universe Tolkien had created.

It’s 1977, and Bass and Rankin release their version of The Hobbit as a television special. Prior to this, the animation duo were most well-known for developing almost every Christmas special ever. They had always been big fans of the original book and decided to stick to it as much as they could, perfectly recreating the story. The actual special is pretty fun. Unlike the Peter Jackson Hobbit trilogy (which are full-on action movies), this special stays true to the original story and tone found within the book. Bass and Rankin bring their own flair to it by making it feel as mystical as possible. The backgrounds are gorgeous watercolor paintings, the creatures look otherworldly, and the entire production is narrated by John Huston, of all people (who also voices Gandalf!). 

Bass and Rankin’s Hobbit

 While watching the film, I couldn’t help but appreciate just how much imagination the duo put into their adaptation. Again, it’s visually unlike any other version. While I can appreciate Jackson’s films for sticking to their absolutely perfect designs, there is something about this small TV special that is just so charming. It’s a movie that feels less like an adaptation and more like a genuine retelling of a legend, which is something I can’t say about the others. Bass/Rankin would strike back later on with an adaptation of Return of the King in 1980. Honestly, though, it’s not very good. Where The Hobbit seems like a genuine attempt at adapting a classic, Return of the King feels like a quick cash grab. 

And then comes Ralph Bakshi, everyone’s favorite controversial animator. It’s 1978 now and up to this point, Bakshi is known for his…interesting animated movies. Some of his previous works include Wizards (1977), Heavy Traffic (1973), and the big one, Fritz the Cat (1972). You can look up those on your own. But Bakshi had been interested in adapting Tolkien’s world for years. The only problem was that The Lord of the Rings (not The Hobbit) was a story that was considered by many to be unfilmable. However, Bakshi pressed on and eventually released The Lord of the Rings, A film that adapts The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. “What about Return of the King?” you ask. Unfortunately, Bakshi had to cut the story into just the first two books due to budget limitations. So yes, this is not the full story (Which is one of the reasons why Bass/Rankin adapted Return of the King). 

Ralph Bakshi’s ‘Lord of the Rings’

The best way to describe the movie is that it is ambitious. It’s obvious from the very start that Bakshi poured his heart and soul into the production. Much like the Bass/Rankin adaptation, This story features otherworldly designs, striking visuals, and a depiction of the world that is much

different than any other version. This is pushed even further through Bakshi’s extensive use of rotoscoped animation to add a sense of realism to the world, especially in the action scenes. It isn’t a perfect adaptation, but it’s one that served as a major inspiration for the Peter Jackson films and one of the highlights of Bakshi’s career. 

As I said at the beginning, these films remain in the shadow of the Peter Jackson films. His depiction of the world is what all look to now when wanting to experience the world of Middle Earth. In many ways, I do agree they are the definitive way to experience LOTR without reading the books. However, they are almost too definitive. Jackson’s films are so groundbreaking, influential, true to the story, and detailed that in many ways, THEY have become what people think of when they think of LOTR. The adaptation, in its quest to recreate, has ended up overtaking the original work. I found it interesting that while watching the 70s films, I was often surprised by some of the design choices. I used the word “otherworldly” earlier, and I wonder if that’s because they really are that, or if they’re just that way because they’re not like the designs seen in the Peter Jackson films. 

With new LOTR media being pushed out constantly (all based around Jackson’s trilogy) I wonder how audiences will see the franchise years from now. Will creators be able to tell their own stories, or will they have to adhere to Jackson’s vision of Middle Earth? This expands to franchises outside of fantasy as well. When the inevitable reboot of the Marvel Universe occurs, will they base the new films on the original comic books or on the current MCU? Cinema is filled with so many filmmakers wanting to tell their own versions of stories. Can their adaptations even exist in a world where the “true” one already exists? I could be completely

wrong, but it is something to keep in mind with the billions of adaptations releasing every year. Can there be multiple adaptations of a story, all presenting their own unique and worthy depiction of the source material, or will there only end up being one adaptation to rule them all? 

Article Courtesy of Brodie Blizzard