There have been many different adaptations of the work of the legendary J.R.R. Tolkien’s work over the years. The most famous of which was Peter Jackson’s trilogy of films based on The Lord of the Rings in the early 2000s, which were monumental critical and financial successes. When Jackson followed up those movies with another trilogy based on The Hobbit, the results weren’t quite the same. Beyond that, there was also the strange Russian television adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring in the 1990s, in addition to numerous different animated films and TV specials. One of the most overlooked of these animated Middle-Earth stories is the Rankin/Bass adaptation of The Return of the King, which first aired in 1980.
MOVIEWEB VIDEO OF THE DAY
This particular adaptation of The Return of the King has largely been lost to history, with few people even aware of its existence at this point. The film comes from the same creative team behind the television special of The Hobbit from 1977, with several actors returning to voice the same characters. The film almost never saw the light of day, as the Tolkien estate threatened to sue Rankin/Bass over the production, stating that they did not hold the rights to produce an adaptation of The Return of the King. After that suit was ultimately settled, the film aired in May 1980. Upon its release, this version of The Return of the King was considered to be one of the worst on-screen adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, yet, which is a reputation that has stuck with it over the years. Looking back on it now, the film exists as an odd chapter in the history of Tolkien films.
The Animated “Trilogy”
Warner Bros. Television Distribution
The Return of the King is often viewed as the last chapter in an animated trilogy of sorts that was released in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. The first entry in this trilogy is the TV special of The Hobbit, with the second being Ralph Bakshi’s animated theatrical adaptation of The Lord of the Rings from 1978. Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings covered most of the events of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, and though the filmmaker intended to make a direct sequel covering the final events of The Two Towers and telling the entirety of The Return of the King, that film never came to fruition. So, with the Rankin/Bass version of The Return of the King releasing only a few years later, many believe that the film slots in well alongside the Bakshi movie.
In reality, the Bakshi version of The Lord of the Rings has pretty much nothing to do with the Rankin/Bass versions of The Hobbit and The Return of the King. Immediately following the release of The Hobbit, Rankin/Bass moved forward with what they considered to be a direct sequel to it, The Return of the King. They did this independently of Bakshi, with no regard for what he was doing with his film. When asked about the decision to skip over the first two chapters of The Lord of the Rings and proceed directly into The Return of the King, co-director Arthur Rankin Jr. stated, “I didn’t know that we could handle all that. I didn’t know that the audience would sit still for it. I was wrong.”
Whether or not they were intended to be or not, there’s no arguing that these animated films (being: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Return of the King) do form their own little trilogy of sorts. When considered together, the films make for one of the more unique adaptations of Tolkien’s material, as they are significantly condensed stories that were produced more for existing fans of the material rather than to introduce the story to new fans. The Return of the King doesn’t quite pick up on all the dangling story threads that were left by Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings, but many of the key elements do line up. Stepping back and looking at the three films, Return of the King is the only one that doesn’t quite work on its own, as there was just way too much material being crammed into a film that barely exceeds 90 minutes. Even Rankin Jr. admitted in the same aforementioned interview that “It’s not a very good film.”
How It Adapts the Book
As for how the Rankin/Bass version of The Return of the King adapts the novel it is based upon, the short answer is not very well. While there are a few instances in which there is a clear faithfulness in the material presented in the Return of the King novel, the overall spirit and heart of the story are missing. A significant reason for this is the fact that it tries to tell the story of The Lord of the Rings in one short but cohesive outing. In doing so, it cuts out most of the characters, general plot and any sense of urgency regarding the journey of Frodo and Sam into Mordor. It never even bothers to explain why the two Hobbits have to destroy the ring in Mordor, leastways not any further than “the ring is evil, and Sauron wants it.” This is the kind of adaptation that requires a pre-existing familiarity with the material. If anyone who hadn’t read the books, or seen Jackson’s adaptations of them, were to watch this Return of the King film, they would have absolutely no idea what was going on.
The one bit of faithfulness to the book that this version of Return of the King has over the Jackson version is that it starts the journey of Frodo and Sam in the same spot as the novel. Frodo has been captured by the orcs of Mordor and is being held captive in the tower of Cirith Ungol, while Sam takes the ring and Frodo’s sword and attempts to rescue him. Many of these events unfold almost exactly as they do in the book, even if it’s not entirely clear what brought Frodo and Sam to that place to begin with. After that, Frodo and Sam’s journey across Mordor to Mount Doom hits the key points from the book, but it is significantly abridged. At least, until they actually arrive at the crack of doom and Frodo claims the ring for himself, at which point the film establishes that Sam and Gollum chase an invisible Frodo around the chasm for literally days on end, which is a baffling change that is only ever mentioned in passing.
As for the assault upon Minas Tirith and the actual coming of Aragorn to Gondor alongside Legolas and Gimli, these events are even further condensed. The film throws the viewer into this story mid-assault on the city. Everything is already burning, Gandalf and Pippin are gripped by despair, and Denethor loses his mind and orders his own execution as a result. While there are a few cool moments that come from this story, it’s still just way too rushed and under explained to make for the kind of solitary story it’s trying to be. One positive standout from this sequence is also the more book-accurate design of the Witch King, even though it is immediately undercut by the strange decision to have his voice sound almost exactly like that of Skeletor from Masters of the Universe. Beyond that, another puzzling choice was to not actually include Aragorn in the story until it’s almost over, as the titular King of the film doesn’t show up until the last 15 minutes of the movie. Meanwhile, Legolas and Gimli are written out of the film entirely. Say what you will about Jackson’s adaptations of The Hobbit, at least all the core characters were there.
How It Holds Up Today
Of the three animated adaptations of Tolkien that make up this trilogy, the Rankin/Bass version of The Return of the King has undoubtedly aged the poorest. This isn’t because of any particularly bad decisions in the animation, but rather because audiences have now actually seen what a good adaptation of The Return of the King looks like. Compared to the Jackson film, this adaptation doesn’t hold any water. The storytelling and writing are so thin that it fails to remotely capture the viewer’s attention. There are some interesting visual details to be found in the film, such as the design of the Oliphaunts, the battering ram Grond, or the emblem of Sauron’s eye upon the armor and shields of Mordor’s armies. Unfortunately, none of this quality animation is put to good use as the script does such a poor job of handling the material it is adapting.
The writing and execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. The only strong dialogue in the film comes through the points where the source material is directly being quoted. Thankfully, that happens frequently, but the new dialogue that is added in addition to it is about as generic as it could get. On top of that, even when the source material is being directly quoted, just about every name or place in the film is mispronounced. Whether it be Minas Tirith, Cirith Ungol, Gorgoroth, Barad-dûr or any other name like that, it can be assumed that it will be mispronounced in this version of The Return of the King. Another aspect of the film that hasn’t aged well are the numerous musical numbers, which permeate the film from beginning to end. Whether they are being sung by an army of marching orcs or a narrator-like minstrel is singing them off-screen, the songs in The Return of the King are bland and distracting, and they do little for the overall experience of the film beyond attempting to lighten the tone of what can be such a dour story.
As for whether or not this film is worth watching, that really depends on how much of a fan of the material you are. For casual fans of Tolkien, this version of The Return of the King is entirely skippable. You’re not going to miss out on anything if you decide to overlook this one. This is barely even worth watching for the die-hard fans out there. It’s the kind of thing that is only worth watching if you are a completionist, and even then only once within the context of the previous Rankin/Bass and Bakshi films. Beyond that context, the 1980 animated version of The Return of the King isn’t worth visiting, and it is undoubtedly the weakest entry in the wider array of Tolkien adaptations.
