Pro's and Con's

"I'm still waiting for someone to produce a version that actually uses Prof. Tolkien's plot and dialog. Hopefully it'll happen before I shuffle off this mortal coil..."

Simply lifting Tolkiens plot and dialogue straight for the page and putting it onto the screen and into the actors mouth would never work, that's why adaptations have to be first turned into screenplays. Yes, some of the lines they left out would have been nice to hear, and several sections of plot were left out, but if Jackson had produced Tolkiens book word for word the result would have been a rambling mess of film, more in common with a contemporary Shakespearean play than a modern movie. Be honest now, is it really believable that Eowyn is going to stand there on the battlefield and spout all that dialogue in her best dramatic diction?

If you want an example of a failed adaptation that uses chunks of dialogue taken verbatim from its source, look no further than Timothy Hines "War of the Worlds" (admittedley, that movie had SO much more wrong with it, but the dialogue played its own part)

I think you'll have to agree that Jackson et al did a bang up job of actually turning the book into a movie. While thay did leave many sections of he book out and changed other things around, they managed to cram in a lot more than I would have given them credit for. Also the changes that were made were moderatly minor and were there to streamline the plot and make it more manageable for audiences. Let's face it, with a book you can afford to invest weeks in getting your enjoyment out of it. You can't expect a cinema audience to sit there for days on end while every jot and tittle of the original plot is explored. In the end, the story does not suffer for the changes and cuts made. By the way, Jackson did use the Mouth of Sauron line - check out the extended directors cut of ROTK. In fact, all three directors cuts average about 12 hours of movie and he STILL couldn't fit it all in. Hows that for not enough time?

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being an ultracrepidarian who has only seen the films, I am an Englishman who regards Tolkiens work as the finest story ever written and a source of great national pride. I have been reading and re-reading his books on and off for the last 20 years and I never grow tired of them.

"Yep...laugh if you will, but this version was *far* closer to Professor Tolkien's work than Jackson's film(s)."

How can you possibly say that. Yes there were some things in the animated version that were closer to the book. But what about all of the missing characters. Would it ahve taken that long to simply ADD GIMI AND LEGOLAS TO THE R&B VERSION. Come on! They are 2 of the main characters of the book(even though they dont play as large a part in ROTK) And all 3 seconds it would have taken to put in Eomer and Farimer. Especially since they are vital to the story. Or how about adding Prince Imrahil, who for some reason was not included in any version.

Either way Jackson's Rings triology was amazing. I dont htink anyone could have made it better.

if youre not satisfied by the phenomena that was PJs lotr, you wont be satisfied by any other adaptation again. stick to books, because clearly you are unhappy with any deviation from the EXACT TEXT.

What was that?
A terrible thing.

-Cloverfield.

this movie is bs !
Look at the Lord of the Rings movies!
They 10000000000000000000 times better then this piece of cake...

I agree with many of the opinions posted here: namely, that the Rankin/Bass cartoon was far more faithful not only to the plotline and direct dialogue from the novel "The Return of the King", but also to the dark tones the books presented regarding possession of the One Ring. This is especially apparent when Frodo and Sam are reaching their goal of Mt. Doom in the cartoon, and we see Frodo clearly becoming influenced and corrupted by the Ring's power, especially when inside of Mordor. Peter Jackson did not do a very clear job of demonstrating the Ring's malevolent influence over the sentient lifeforms of Middle Earth (he does a better job of this, to a small degree, in Part 1, or "The Fellowship of the Ring", but that's another post entirely). This is not a mere oversight, but a significant one if we are truly to believe the Ring is as evil as the characters believe it to be. Cartoon Frodo acrtually glows red and his personality changes completely; by comparison, Elijah Wood does not portray Frodo's ensnarement by the Ring very convincingly.

The cartoon also adheres more closely to Tolkien's dialogue. Personally, this is not such a big deal for me, and it seems but a quibble for die-hard purists. Still, there may be merit to arguing that Eowyn and the Lord of Nazgul's encounter is better captured through Tolkien's words (and how Rankin/Bass adapted them) rather than through Jackson's screenwriter. The Rankin/Bass movie also included some scenes I was sad not to see in Jackson's movie, such as Denethor's influence under the power of the palantir, or the Army of the West's encounter with the Mouth of Sauron at Morannon. I also wanted to see Gollum cringe, as Brother Theodore did so splendidly, with the sad words, "we'll die into the dust [without the Ring]." This adherence to Tolkien would have helped, rather than hindered, the Jackson movie's progression.

I can understand why many think the Rankin/Bass version sucks. For starters, the first 2/3 of "The Lord of the Rings" has to be squeezed in as a backstory. This is extremely difficult, even under the best of circumstances. As a result, the Rankin/Bass production is very sloppy with its presentation of many important characters, such as Aragorn, Merry and Pippin, and Theoden. Some relics, such as Galadriel's Phial, are peculiarly explained. Frodo's incarceration in Cirith Ungol is poorly done, as are Sam's discovery of Sting and the Ring (no Shelob attack precedes it). Rankin/Bass must take the blame for this execultion, as it is very apparent they saw their movie a sequel to Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings", and wanted to capitalize on the fact that he never finished the story in his movie (which I have not seen, but I've read about the theories about why Rankin/Bas only did the final third of LOTR). What Rankin/Bass should have done was a complete redux, starting with "The Fellowship", and worked its way from there. Alas, budgetary constraints must have precluded that ambitious goal. Contrary to others think, the Rankin/Bass movie proves that LOTR is perfectly adaptable, even as a cartoon movie; but the complete story must be told in order for it to be done well.

P.S. I loved Merry's vocal resemblance to Shaggy; God bless Casey Casem!