The Rings Full Movies

[Endike Baur]

Ayear after The Hobbit, Ralph Bakshi got his two-hour Lord of the Rings movie into theaters. Was it strange that the guy who did Fritz the Cat and Coonskin would be the one to adapt Tolkien for theaters? Or would that not be as strange as hiring the Kiwi who did Braindead and Meet the Feebles for the same job 25 years later?

So in 1978, Bakshi adapted The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers into one movie called The Lord of the Rings: Part 1. His film is a mixed media of violently clashing rotoscoping, real photography, and abstract backgrounds. It looks like a mess and plays like it too. Which was always one of the selling points with Bakshi: Were his movies abrasive and choppy because he never had the money to make them look better, or was it because he just wanted to piss people off? The answer has probably always been a little bit of both. His movies are certainly never dull.

I'd like to know the opinions of those of you who spent way too much time on Middle Earth and both read the series and saw the movies. I, personally, am very biased because I first watched the movies at age nine, and have marathoned them every year since, whereas I only read the books for the first time two years ago. I find the movies more enjoyable. The books are more of a walk through Tolkien's world, while we watch people in the world, and the movies are much more character-driven. Anyway, I'm open to discussion and an opinion-change!

I agree with what has been said here. All in all, I think that the books (in combination with the Hobbit book) are, in a way, the definite, complete experience, in that they are more expanded, have a lot of lore unmentioned in the movies and are more true to the mythological roots of the ideas in the story. That said, the films have more of an emotional impact on me, mostly because the greater depth to side characters (especially Theoden, Faramir, and Denethor, whose madness is blamed on Sauron's influence rather than internal conflict in the books) makes for better drama. It's very different from what the books try to achieve, both are fantastic at what they do, both among the best trilogies in their respective medium.

I'm generally an unabridged kind of guy. Firmly believe something like The Count of Monte Cristo should never be read abridged. I spent longer than I like to admit trying to find the full version of The Princess Bride book before I realized that the, "Just the good parts version" actually is the original and part of the joke. I've read LoTR many times and own the extended editions of all the movies. I like to have the full experience, basically.

That being said, when it comes to LoTR, the books are, quite frankly, dreadfully dull at times. I'm sad we lost Tom Bombadil, but beyond that, I feel like the movies are the superior way to experience the story in many ways.They keep the spirit and the story in tact, and they viciously trim the fat. Sure, we lose some nuance and a couple of worthwhile bits here and there, but for the most part, they really did an incredible job.

On the flipside of that, I think The Hobbit is a wonderful book. It doesn't drag like the trilogy does. It's fun and lively and straight-forward. I really enjoy reading it. The way that stretched it out into 3 movies so that they could shoehorn in a love story, a barrel-riding fight, the wizard/necromancer battle, etc. is a crying shame. I understand why you'd want to. I mean, in the book Bilbo spends almost the entirety of the giant, climactic final battle knocked out. It skips over the whole thing. I can understand, especially after the success of the trilogy, the desire to, you know, actually show the battle, but it kind of defeats the point. The Hobbit is Bilbo's story. He IS the hobbit, and there's not much he can or should be doing in that battle. So you don't need the battle, and you certainly don't need all that other junk. The book, in this case, is the superior version of the story, IMO.

Yes, but at the same time, it is more or less a history book in-world, so I think that only fits. It makes it a comparatively slow read though, I agree with that. That's nothing in comparison to the Silmarillion though. That one really makes no prisoners.

I can appreciate the movies, but I look at them more as action films and eye candy. I feel like the books were really trying to say something though. Things about mythology, sin, forgiveness, redemption etc. I feel like the books were much deeper and poignant than anything the movie could touch. Gimli's character in the movies was reduced to more of a comic relief and well...more of a simpleton. I may sound like I don't like the movies, but I actually really enjoy them for what they are. I just prefer the books.

I'll admit I am not yet to the point I can read them with no boredom, but I think it's worth it to read them every few years. Also the movies ruined Pippin, he was so smart in the books and then they decided they needed a dude with three brain cells.

Are you saying that you find The Silmarilion dull? I have to ask what you are on because it is almost certainly illegal, The Silmarilion is awesome, I was very interested in that, but I read the appendixes of Return of the King, and occasionally would read my history book for fun, so I could just be weird.

The rest of you have said it all! Though I do have the bad habit of complaining to my brother every time Tolkien goes off on a tangent about trees or someone sings a really long song in Elvish, I do enjoy reading the books, just for a very different reason than the movies. There are very few instances in the books where I truly connect with the characters, (Some of those being when Faramir talks to Eowyn in the House of Healing, or when Pippin and Merry are re-capping the Battle of Isengard.), whereas I love the Mythology and the depth it goes into very every single thing. Everything they encounter in the books is alive and has a history, and I find that really cool.

Just that it's a slow read and way more heavy and uncompromising in its approach than the main books - I like it, although not as much as the Lord of the Rings. The Beren and Luthien story in particular is certainly one of Tolkien's best works, I love that one. It's undoubtedly challenging as a whole, but I don't mean that as an measure of how much I enjoyed it!

One thing I feel is worth bringing up is that in general, Tolkien never aimed at a cinematic/overly visual writing style like most modern authors do. That's because he was mostly inspired by actual works of mythology and conceptualized Middle-Earth as a whole as a fictional mythology rather than a fantasy universe - it's why most of his work is closer to Homer, the Bible, Beowulf, and the Kalevala (my personal favorite myth) than to, say, Brandon or Robert Jordan. Since such a piece of mythology could not really faithfully be reconstructed in film (especially since the people who would tell and write down these stories in-world do not have that technology, so the films would not be the "original documents" of their culture), they can't possibly win in the same game the books play. So they play their own game - grand scope blockbuster cinema - and master it in their own right. I think it's always important to make that distinction between the goals of both works, and recognize how confident they are in both. Tolkien has certainly achieved the more extraordinary goal, while the film trilogy is not as revolutionary, but has had more of an emotional impact on me personally - which is why I probably prefer it at the end of the day.

I totally agree. Tolkien really just wanted to display his world, not tell a story. I think nowadays we're more used to fast-paced stories that don't go so deep into mythology, and that's why so many people get freaked out by the books.

So, a lot of stuff like the songs and ruins and legends are meant to hint at a deeper history and culture. Since Lord of the Rings is not meant to be a historical work, meta or otherwise, the context and meaning are not necessary.

3a8082e126