For some reason, my webpage about Rankin/Bass' Return of the King has become one of my most popular pages. After an e-mail exchange with cartoonist/writer Scott Roberts about that movie, I just HAD to watch it again, just for the chuckles.

There isn't any need to detail the plot itself this time, as I had done that already. Instead we'll take a look at the additions and omissions that Rankin/Bass had done to their adaptation of ROTK. In the case of the additions, we'll see if these add anything useful, and if they have some internal logic in them that makes sense in the context of the story. As for the omissions, we'll see if the overall story can survive without them, or if we have seemingly irrelevant references to people, things and events with no explanation about what they are and why they're there.

Scott's commentary is in green, and my commentary is in yellow.

Most of our observations fall into these general categories:

A) "laugh out loud" moments
B) completely contrary to the books
C) newly made-up and makes things even more confusing or nonsensical
D) omits such key parts of the story that their version is something else entirely
E) "all of the above"

LOL moment: Gandalf's opening narration. "Concern yourselves with blah blah blah...Consider no less yak yak yak." And how many times does he say "Behold"?

LOL moment: After all these years since Bilbo left, Frodo still keeps the Ring on a velvet pillow in a bell jar on the mantle. Sure he does.

LOL moment: Sam eagerly poking his head in the window of Bag-End, like they're getting ready to go fishing. Once they start their journey, Sam's hat has the jaunty feather. How come Sean Astin didn't get one of those? Bet he was jealous. Sam's choice of headgear adornment makes better sense than Frodo's. Frodo had a pipe tucked in the flap, making one wonder why it just didn't fall out during the long trip.

Key plot omission: The fellowship never existed, Frodo and Sam set out alone, had some adventures not worth mentioning, and now our story begins.

Key plot omission: Aragorn had been doing his own thing all along off in some distant land, completely divorced from any sort of involvement with Gandalf, Hobbits, the Ring, etc. There was some silly prophecy that promised him a kingdom, provided that someone else did all the hard and dirty work of destroying some Ring, not that Aragorn knew anything about that.

Additional confusing moment: Sam and Frodo arrived ALONE at Rivendell to attend that all-important Bilbo's 129th birthday party. Which makes it unclear of how and when Merry and Pippin arrived to attend the same party. Did Merry and Pippin beat them to Rivendell? Were Merry and Pippin Johnny-come-lately's? Why'd they split up at all and arrive separately?

LOL moment: Sword proportions.... even Bakshi had this wrong too. According to Bakshi and R/B, Sting, and any other sharp metal instrument carried by a Hobbit is perfectly sized as a hobbit's dagger. The blades are about 10" long (hobbit's measurement) and the hilts are proportioned to a hobbit's hand. BUT... since these blades were supposed to have been forged by Elves or the Dúnedain for their own use as daggers, they're supposed to be sword-sized in proportion to a hobbit. The hilts should be thick and somewhat oversized in a hobbit's hand. So Sting and the other blades were originally ... Elvish cheese-spreaders or little cocktail swords for spearing cherries in a goblet of sweet wine? Only Peter Jackson got the sword thing right.

Speaking of swords, the prologue shows Frodo randomly swinging his sword at... nothing, after leaving a dark tunnel. Sam follows with a concerned look. Not the look of "Oh dear, look at that ugly dangerous spider", but the look of "Is Frodo going mad? He's flailing at nothing". Why couldn't R/B add a silhouette of a spider or something?

Key plot omission: Frankly, Gandalf doesn't seem very wise and powerful in Romeo Muller's script. More than anything, he appears to be a worry wort and wet blanket. He sits and gazes out on the battlefield predicting nothing but doom, and seems unable to lend a hand in any way. What's the use of having a wizard like this on hand? For this he fought the Balrog and became Gandalf the White? Sure he confronts the goofy voiced Witch King, but so what? He's just going to go back and sulk later anyway.

Additional confusing moment:

LOL moment:

LOL moment: The second the Witch King starts cackling at Gandalf. Gee, maybe when Éowyn slays him, he should've said "And I would've got away with it too, if it hadn't been for these pesky kids!"

Contrary to book: Aragorn has little respect for Gandalf and thinks he's a coward. During "The Last Debate", Aragorn addresses Gandalf by occupation, as "Wizard", as if Gandalf were of lower status. Also, listen for the tone of oozing contempt in his voice as he asks Gandalf, "Does the mere thought of Sauron's vast forces (sneer) overwhelm (sneer) your spirit?"

Actually, I'm not truly a Tolkien purist. I can accept some changes, as long as it still makes for a coherent story afterwards, or if it adds a new and exciting dimension to characters or events. For example, in my opinion, Glorfindel was not a necessary character, and his activities at the Fords of Bruinen were not something that only he could do. Bakshi's replacement of Legolas for Glorfindel at the Fords doesn't bother me at all. As for Peter Jackson's replacement of Arwen for Glorfindel... I'm all for it. We could always use a little more "grrrl power" in Tolkien. The replacement of an extraneous character for someone that we would get to know more intimately is fine with me.

Related Pages:
Rankin-Bass' Return of the King

This article is Copyright 2006 K.F. Louie and Scott Roberts (as noted).

May not be reproduced without the written permission of the author.

Questions and Comments may be sent to me at:
ZMOQ

There's no place like HOME