Told and Retold ~ 'The Lord of the Rings'

Appraising the iconic fantasy epic, its adaptations, and what they mean to me

J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings novels—the mega sequels to the The Hobbit (1937), consisting of The Fellowship of the Ring (1954), The Two Towers (1954), and The Return of the King (1955)—are the father of modern fantasy.

Taking influence from mythologies of old and placing them in a long-lost version of Britain called Middle-Earth, their then-unprecedented depth of world building—including the way they incorporate humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs—can be felt in many a fantasy property today, such as the Warcraft franchise (which I have yet to experience beyond what I thought was a passable film adaptation).

One thing that especially resonates with me about Lord of the Rings is how Tolkien writes his Catholic faith into every inch of it, from the virtue and decency of the heroes, to the One Ring representing the destructive allure of sin, to a character’s death and resurrection after a battle with a devil, to the emphasis on providence being able to bring the greater good out of something evil.

Of course, what really began my love for the story were Peter Jackson’s ever-iconic film adaptations (2001-2003). As I’ve said elsewhere, not only are they the only great medieval high fantasy movies, but I believe they’re the peak of escapist cinema period, and the films that feel the most like a personal journey to me. And along with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998), they’re the reason why medieval high fantasy can my favorite genre, depending on how it’s done.

The fact that Jackson started out making gross-out horror comedies and was able to prove to New Line Cinema that he could pull off three gargantuan fantasy epics at once through his use of visual effects in the The Frighteners (1996)—another of his movies I’ve come to watch annually in spite of its at times miscalculated tone—makes these films’ masterful execution even more impressive.

Of course, they were too intense for little me to see in theaters, but each one has captured my imagination ever since it came out on video.

And yet, it wasn't until recently when I finally finished the original novels. I had first attempted them in my teen years, but since reading wasn’t a consistent hobby for me back then, my interest slowly waned until I gave up halfway through.

Whereas Jackson’s direction emphasizes the action and spectacle that film allows for, Tolkien’s writing emphasizes the deliberate pacing and aforementioned world building that literature allows for. That’s certainly not to say that such a writing style is a bad thing, but it can get overwhelming even for a non-casual reader.

And so, after I picked reading back up last year, I planned for all that classic mythology I started with to culminate in a full readthrough of The Lord of the Rings. Of course, I started them with The Hobbit, which I had finished before, and my full thoughts on that one and its adaptations can go in their own Told and Retold. What I will say here is that the book is still a delight!

As I’ve said, though, Tolkien’s writing in the following trilogy is much more of a challenge, especially in Fellowship. Its film counterpart is my all-time favorite, but the book’s uneven pacing—from its plot detours to the ways it halts for lore drops—still makes it hard to get through even when I’d finished it before.

It wasn’t until The Two Towers—whose film version is my least favorite (still amazing, though)—where Tolkien’s writing consistently clicked for me this time. Although, when I was enjoying it, I couldn’t tell whether it was on its own terms or because it was reminding me of the movies, especially during the emotional parts of Return of the King, but I was enjoying the experience regardless!

There are definitely things I'm surprised were exclusive to the films (i.e. how much more presence the villains and female characters have there) and disappointed were omitted from them (i.e. the hobbits cleverly figuring out for themselves that Frodo is carrying the One Ring), but one thing I did not expect to be from the page is Samwise Gamgee dramatically sounding out “po-ta-toes”, nor his and Frodo’s meta conversation about their story becoming legend.

Of course, Jackson does make a number of Tolkien’s heroes more flawed. His Aragorn is reluctant to become king, his Faramir doesn’t reject temptation so easily, his Merry and Pippin’s foolishness is emphasized exponentially… Yet, these flaws are in service of giving these characters more explicit growth, so while Tolkien writes the ideal heroes, there are still merits to Jackson’s versions.

Also, if you thought the Return of the King film’s epilogue was long, Tolkien’s epilogue takes up almost half the book! Literature allows for such pacing, though, especially when it leads to a second climax that, in agreement with Jackson, would have been too much for a film that was already a lot to take in.

Of course, there are many more Lord of the Rings adaptations than the Jackson films, but I will go into a few more I know personally more briefly each.

I soon followed up the books with the 1981 BBC radio dramas, which are widely considered the most faithful adaptations ever told, even if they have a prologue explaining Sauron and the Ring upfront, intercut events in chronological order, and completely skip over the Old Forest like many adaptations do.

Still, not only did I get invested in these to the point of nearly crying at the end, but they helped me appreciate Tolkien’s writing even more!

Also funny how their retelling of Return of the King is shorter than the film’s theatrical runtime, yet the film also includes a good portion of The Two Towers whereas the radio drama’s Two Towers includes a good portion of King.

Of course, Peter Jackson’s version is not the first time Lord of the Rings was adapted to screen, nor the first screen version I saw, though I saw it after I’d seen previews for the live-action versions. That first screen version was Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 animated adaptation, which held the record for the longest animated Hollywood film until Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse was released in 2023.

Even so, it could only tell half the story, and at a hectic pace, so it has that inherently going against it. It also has some unintentional hilarity and a lot of unintentional creepiness in the live-action footage that was solarized to look animated next to the live-action footage that was drawn over to actually become animated. Still, it’s an attempt worth admiring for its ambition.

Rankin/Bass, previous animated adapters of The Hobbit in 1977, also adapted Return of the King in 1980, and I could tell early on that that one wouldn’t be worth pushing on my post-concussion syndrome (or PCS) to catch up on for this post.

The story was also incompletely adapted in 1994 with The Lord of the Rings: Volume 1 for the Super Nintendo, and I played a little bit of it decades ago; given its mixed reception, it doesn’t sound like I ever needed to play further.

The Jackson trilogy was released during a time where almost every tentpole movie had a video game adaptation coinciding with its release, and although their hack-and-slash gameplay that’s centered around slaying orcs would have Tolkien rolling in his grave, the direct tie-ins to The Two Towers and Return of the King were surprisingly fun for what they were, especially Return of the King!

And then there’s Battle for Middle-Earth (2004), my favorite real-time strategy (or RTS), for how it simplifies the genre’s mechanics and puts them in Middle-Earth. Its story campaign even takes you through the movies! I’ve always had a hard time getting into the second one due to how it returns to traditional RTS mechanics.

I should also mention The Rings of Power, Amazon’s prequel series that began in 2022 and has caused quite the division among fans. I have yet to watch the second season due to the aforementioned PCS (same reason why I have yet to see The War of the Rohirram [2024]), but as someone who hasn’t learned all of Tolkien’s lore nor is interested in doing so, I enjoyed the first season for what it was.

For better or for worse, the books will never take the films’ places in my heart; just thinking about the Return of the King movie can tug at my heart in a way thinking about the book can't, at least not yet. In fact, I think the films are like The Wizard of Oz (1939) in how they’ll always be seen as the definitive film versions even if others come along. Even so, I still really appreciate the novels, both for what they influenced and for their own merits, and I’m sure I’ll enjoy them even more through repeated readings and/or audio books.

To end on a silly anecdote: my brother once told me about a dream he had where he was talking to Daniel Day-Lewis about the movies, and DDL told him in his memorable Daniel Plainview voice: “I have never even seen Lord of the Rings. I don’t even know what you’re talking about.” It’s since become a recurring joke between us and a friend of mine, and I wish it were a widespread meme.

---