The Lord of the Rings – The Adaptations.

[Alatar]

Much has been discussed about the adaptation of LotR, so I thought it would be interesting to examine the subject in detail using the following as examples.

Peter Jackson’s Movie Adaptation
Ralph Bakshi’s Movie Adaptation
BBC Radio Adaptation
Minds Eye Radio Adaptation

Where we have info we can also refer to John Boorman’s proposed adaptation.

For the future, these will be referred to as PJ, RB, BBC, ME and JB.

Beginnings:

The book begins with a prologue which tells us about hobbits. With the exception of the PJ Extended Edition of FotR this material is not used in any of the adaptations. This is unfortunate given the emphasis Tolkien places on this structure. While most of the adaptations begin with a prologue of backstory, the book gently introduces these over time, placing the Hobbits squarely at the center of the stage and giving us a secure point of reference.

PJ gives us a brief history of the ring, thus splitting the exposition of Shadow of the Past and Council of Elrond into smaller chunks. In many ways, this prologue is similar to BBC, notably in the “showing” of Gollums capture and torture at the hands of Sauron. RB gives us a similar prologue, but it is poorly executed, being too short and in several conflicting styles (a problem that does not go away unfortunately). ME has a very rudimentary introduction and jumps straight to the Ivy Bush tavern to discuss the coming Birthday party.

More details later.


Feel free to jump in and discuss!

[Jude]

What, no Rankin-Bass?

I well remember the tavern scene from the Mind's Eye production - it was my first clue that this was not a good adaptation. In fact, I didn't make it much farther than that. I actually borrowed it from the library by mistake, thinking it was the BBC version.

[vison]

The stage play?

[MithLuin]

Ohhh, yes, I've seen the Musical in Toronto, and would love to comment on that

As far as the opening goes...

They begin with hobbits roaming the stage (and the audience!) catching fireflies. It is comic (HUGE butterfly nets), and shows that hobbits are down-to-earth, homey, (and easily amused ). Once all the fireflies are caught in a jar, they are released, and the hobbits scamper off. It also blurs the line as to when the show actually begins, and makes the audience feel more a part of what is going on. The hobbits roaming around would stop and chat, after all .

The show began with, what else, a narrative prologue. But it did not narrate the history of the Ring...it narrated the story of the Hobbit. In this sense, it did take a bit from JRRT's prologue (much of the language was recognizable). In a circle in the center of the stage, you could see a shadow-show of Bilbo doing his thing, but also words (like "hobbit" and "accident") were flashed on the screen. Also, while it pointed out that Bilbo finding the Ring was significant, it didn't...tell us any more yet. [We do learn that Sméagol murdered Déagol...eventually. It is told in dialogue, but also shown at the same time. So, semi-narration. But I forget when ...maybe Council of Elrond?]

The show then opens, moving on to Bilbo's party, in which he says goodbye to Frodo. Next we know, Gandalf is visiting Frodo and throwing the Ring in the fire, thus quickly cutting to the chase.

Rankin/Bass didn't do LotR...they only did RotK. So, kinda hard to compare. I guess you could save them until Bakshi runs out of steam.

Though they should get credit for best WtF? opening....
Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin have gone to Rivendell for Bilbo's 129(?)th birthday. Thus, they start the story with "Many Partings" and tell it all in flashback....with the help of the Minstrel of Gondor, singing the Lay of Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of DOOOOOOOOM!

[Alatar]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves!!! I has planned to used Rankin Bass as for the Latter half, following on as a sort of bastard son of Bakshi.

Thanks for including the Musical though, please continue to parallel the scenes as we get to them.

The only stage play I know of is the Puppet show by Canadian group Theatre sans Fils, but to be honest its not a fair comparison and I don't really remember enough to include it.

Unfortunately, I'll have to force myself to endure the Minds Eye production in order to give a balanced appraisal. What's important here is that we're looking at the "adaptation", in other words, the script. Visuals, sound effects and characterisations are only relevant where they affect telling the story.

In other words, I can't say Minds Eye is a bad adaptation simply because the acting is terrible and the production vales are awful.

It will be hard to seperate what I dislike from what is actually bad adaption. But I'll try.

[MithLuin]

Well...the script is an important part of an adaptation, but presentation matters as well. Meaning, you can't ignore costumes and sets. I agree that the skill of the acting, while detracting or enhancing the performance, doesn't necessarily affect the skill of the adaptation.

PJ (and WETA) nailed the visuals, in my not-so-humble opinion. It was, at any rate, an authentic interpretation of Tolkien's text. There were glitches, of course (Rohan didn't look like Kentucky, and the Uruk-hai didn't have "S" runes on their helmets), but the overall effect was very positive.

I haven't seen the Bakshi movie since I was in high school, but I remember being intrigued by the Prologue's use of real people in shadow (I'm a sucker for swirly cloaks ), as well as really liking the fact that he used the Ring-poem. Jackson turned the poem into prose, but still used it to good effect. The first passage I memorized from LotR was "Three Rings for the Elven-kings...." so I do think it important.

I have not listened to the BBC adaption, so I can't comment on that.

[Alatar]

Well...the script is an important part of an adaptation, but presentation matters as well. Meaning, you can't ignore costumes and sets. I agree that the skill of the acting, while detracting or enhancing the performance, doesn't necessarily affect the skill of the adaptation.

Of course it matters! Its crucial to the finished product!

It just shouldn't be considered when judging the "adaptation".

[MithLuin]

What I mean is...costume and sets show what the interpretation is. If there is something screwy with the costumes, it reflects the adaptation made by the creative group. Hmmm...take WETA's designs and put them with Bakshi's script....what happens? It isn't the same anymore; now there's a disconnect, and you get a different project.

But if you would like to focus on scripts, that is certainly fair enough . I don't mean to derail your thread.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've got to agree with MithLuin. Costumes and sets (and even the acting) can absolutely effect how successful the adaptation is, particularly with something like LOTR since such a large part of Tolkien's brilliance involved his physical descriptions. These things are captured by the costumes and sets (and bigatures, etc.). Of course, one can not compare that aspect from the films to the radio adaptations, so perhaps that is why Alatar wants to focus on the scripts.

[Primula Baggins]

That does level the playing field, to stick to scripts.

Watching the films I did sometimes try to imagine what they would have been like if the sets and costumes had been wrong or carelessly done. I think the errors of adaptation would have stood out much more strongly to me than they did.

In a way the radio adaptations have an advantage, because we can simply imagine the same visuals as we did when reading the book—which may leave us with more of an impression of "faithfulness" than would ever be possible in a film.

[Alatar]

Again, I would strongly suggest that Visuals are NOT related to adaption. Adaption is about transferring the STORY and message or themes to a different medium. While the visuals are in the strictest sense an adaptation of the descriptive prose, that is not adaptation as I am referring to it. Simply reproducing something "described" with something "visual" does not require adaptation. Adaptation is about the changes that are made to bring one medium into another. With no changes, its simply not an adaptation. Visually showing a shield with a horse head is not an adaptation of the prose describing it.

But we're dealing with semantics now and rather than get into a big discussion of the very things I was trying to avoid, lets leave it there.

What all the adaptations have in common is their scripts and this is what I want to focus on. Its too easy to use PJs visuals as a crutch, or to dismiss Minds Eye because of the dreadful acting.

We're judging the adaptation. How succesfully the story was transferred to alternate media.

[MithLuin]

I've heard that the Tolkien library at...oh, what college is it....in the Midwest (the one that has many of Tolkien's manuscripts)...is getting the Zimmerman script. That would be interesting to compare, but of course it isn't exactly available online .

So, agreed, this thread is about scripts - not costumes, props, music, special effects or acting.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

I've heard that the Tolkien library at...oh, what college is it....in the Midwest (the one that has many of Tolkien's manuscripts)...is getting the Zimmerman script.

Marquette University in Michigan, I believe it is. A friend of mine has actually visited there, and seen some of the archives. My guess is she must've felt like Gandalf when he poured through the archives at Minas Tirith researching Isildur's connection with the Ring.

I have not listened to the BBC adaption, so I can't comment on that.

Mith, I highly recommend the BBC recordings. I've had them for a couple of years now and have listened to them several times. They're quite well done--we hear the familiar voice of Ian Holm in the role of Frodo--and are very faithful to the book. Like every other adaptation I know of, however, Bombadil and Ghân-buri-Ghân are omitted.

IIRC, the adaptation begins with Gollum being tortured for information about the Ring. I think it serves extremely well as an opening, and was an inspired choice by Mr. Sibley and his colleagues.

[Primula Baggins]

It's going to be hard for me to divorce the script from everything else for the three adaptations I'm reasonably familiar with, but I'll try!

[Alatar]

Here are the four Prologues. ME is closest by far to the book being simply a condensation of the first few paragraphs of FotR. I have included each prologue/opening up to the beginning of the narrative.


Prologues:

I amar prestar aen... (The world is changed)
han mathon ne nen...(I feel it in the water)
han mathon ne chae...(I feel it in the Earth)
a han noston ned 'wilith. (I smell it in the air)
Much that once was is lost. For none now live who remember it.

It began with the forging of the great rings. Three were given to the Elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven to the Dwarf lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else, desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race. But they were all of them deceived, for another ring was made.

In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret a master ring, to control all others. And into this Ring, he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life.

"One Ring to rule them all."

One by one, the free lands in Middle-Earth fell to the power of the Ring. But there were some who resisted. A last alliance of Men and Elves marched against the armies of Mordor and on the slopes of Mount Doom they fought for the freedom of Middle-Earth.

Elrond: Tangado haid! Hado i philinn! (Hold [your] positions! Fire the arrows!)

Victory was near. But the power of the Ring could not be undone.

It was in this moment when all hope had faded, that Isildur, son of the King, took up his father's sword.

Sauron, the enemy of the free-peoples of Middle-Earth was defeated. The Ring passed to Isildur, who had this one chance to destroy evil forever.

But the hearts of men are easily corrupted. And the Ring of Power has a will of its own. It betrayed Isildur to his death. And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost.

History became legend, legend became myth and for two and a half thousand years, the Ring passed out of all knowledge. Until, when chance came, it ensnared a new bearer.

Gollum: My Precioussssss

The Ring came to the creature Gollum, who took it deep into the tunnels of the Misty Mountains. And there, it consumed him.

Gollum: It came to me, my own, my love, my own, my prrrrreciousssss! Gollum

The Ring brought to Gollum unnatural long life. For five hundred years it poisoned his mind. And in the gloom of Gollum's cave, it waited. Darkness crept back into the forest of the world. Rumor grew of a shadow in the east, whispers of a nameless fear, and the Ring of Power perceived. Its time had now come.

It abandoned Gollum.

But something happened then the Ring did not intend. It was picked up by the most unlikely creature imaginable.

Bilbo: What’s this?

A Hobbit: Bilbo Baggins of the Shire.

Bilbo: A ring.

Gollum: (from afar) Losssst! My precious is lost!

For the time will soon come when Hobbits will shape the fortunes of all.

Long ago, in the early years of the Second Age, the great Elven-smiths forged Rings of Power. Nine for mortal Men, seven for the Dwarflords, three for the tall Elf-kings. But then the Dark Lord learned the craft of ring making and made the Master Ring. The One Ring to rule them all.

With the One Ring, Middle-earth is his and he cannot be overcome. As the last alliance of Men and Elves fell beneath his power, he did not notice the heroic shadow who slipped in. It was Prince Isildur of the mighty kings from across the sea, who took the Ring.

But because he did not destroy it the spirit of the Dark Lord lived on, and began to take shape and grow again. But the Ring had a will of its own, and a way of slipping from one hand to be found by another, so that it might at last get back to its master. And there the Ring lay, at the bottom of the Great River Anduin, for thousands of years.

During those years the Dark Lord captured the nine Rings that were made for Men and turned their owners into the Ringwraiths: Terrible shadows under his great shadow, who roamed the world searching for the One Ring. In time, the Ring was found. Two friends were fishing in the Great River one day.

Sméagol Give us that, Déagol, my love.

Déagol Why, Sméagol?

Sméagol Because it is my birthday, my love, and I wants it.

Déagol I have already given you more than I could afford. I found this, and I’m going to keep it!

Sméagol Are you indeed, my love?

He used the Ring for thieving, and to find out secrets. His own people began to despise the wretched creature, and to call him Gollum. Tortured and driven by the Ring, he hid in dark caves under deep mountains. But the Ring slipped off Gollum's finger, too. And so it was that Bilbo found it, during his travels with the Dwarves.

Gollum Thief, Baggins. Thief! It stole our precious, our precious, our birthday present. Thief, Baggins! We hates it forever! We hates it forever!

It was Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit, who took the Ring back to the Shire, his home. Years later Gandalf the Wizard visited Bilbo on his going-away birthday party.

Long years ago, in the Second Age of Middle-earth, the Elven-smiths of Eregion forged rings of great power. Then the Dark Lord Sauron forged One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom in the land of Mordor. This Ring he made to rule the others, and their power was bound up with it, so that they could last only so long as it too should last. And from that time, war never ceased between Sauron and the Elves.

Three rings they hid from him. But the others he gathered into his hands, hoping to make himself master of all things. Then was an alliance made against the Dark Lord, and Sauron was, for that time, vanquished. But at length, his dark shadow stretched forth once more, and he sought again for mastery over the Rings of Power.

One ring had come into the possession of Gollum, a slimy creature as dark as darkness, who kept it secret unto himself in the nether-most depths of the mines beneath the Misty Mountains. There it was hidden, even from the searching eye of Sauron, the Lord of the Rings.

Long years Gollum possessed his ring, before it left him and passed to another. Gollum sought unceasingly to recover it, and without realizing what power drew him on, he made his way step-by-step and mile-by-mile to Mordor.

Gollum: Precious... precious, we've lost the Precious. After all these agesssss, it's gone.

Gollum: It was our birthday present, and it's lost! Curse us and crush us, but we'll never find it again, no, no...

Gollum: Gollum... gollum...

Lord of the Nazgûl: You!

Gollum: Us, us, us?

Lord of the Nazgûl: Miserable creature!

Lord of the Nazgûl: Why are you lurking here?

Gollum: No, not lurking, precious, looking, yes looking for our birthday present. Aren't we, Precious? Yes, that's all.

Lord of the Nazgûl: The Lord Sauron has no liking for those who pry and spy.

Gollum: Spying? Prying? We meant no harm, precious! Did we? No.

Lord of the Nazgûl: None come or go here without the Lord's Sauron's leave!

Lord of the Nazgûl: If you will not answer here, you shall answer in Mordor.

Gollum: Nothing to answer! Is there, Precious? Nothing, no, no, nothing, nothing...

Lord of the Nazgûl: There are devices in Barad-dûr to loosen the lying tongue.

Lord of the Nazgûl: Come!

Gollum: No, precious! No, precious! Puts us down! Puts us down!

Gollum: No! No!

Mouth of Sauron: Why come you to the Land of Mordor?

Gollum: We were only looking for our Precious, weren't we? Our Precious which we lost.

Mouth of Sauron: Precious?

Gollum: Yes...

Mouth of Sauron: What is this Precious?

Gollum: It was ours, and the nasty noser stole it from us!

Mouth of Sauron: What was stolen?

[Gollum mumbles to himself until the device turns again. He screams]

Gollum: We only used it to catch our food with, precious, didn't we? Silly goblinses couldn't see us when we wore the Precious, gollum...

Gollum: We would have died of hunger in those mountains, we would, we would, if it hadn't have been for Precious.

Mouth of Sauron: Where did you get this thing?

[Gollum cries out in pain as he is tortured]

Gollum: It was given to us, precious, as a birthday present. And we kept it safe, oh yes, very safe for long agessss, ‘til the thief took it from us!

Mouth of Sauron: Who took it?

Gollum: We don't know, do we? No, no, we don't.

[He screams]

Gollum: Nasty noser he was, wasn't he Precious? And tricksy too, tried to cheat us, he did. Lost in the mountians, he was, lost. Came nosing around our pool, he did. Asked us riddles, it did. Cheated, it did! Stole it, it did!

Mouth of Sauron: Who stole it?

Gollum: We've said, haven't we, Precious? We don't know, do we, Precious?

[The torture device begins to rotate quickly and Gollum screams]

Mouth of Sauron: Who?

Gollum: Baggins! Baggins he said it was! That's all we know, isn't it, Precious? Yes, yes, yes.

Mouth of Sauron: When was this?

Gollum: Long ago. Yes, yes, years, years ago, and we've been looking for it ever since, haven't we? Yes. Little cheating thief! We ought to have squeezed it!

[He hisses and spits]

Gollum: Squeezed it we ought.

Mouth of Sauron: Where is Baggins now?

Gollum: Don't know, don't know, do we, Precious? No, we don't know where the Baggins is... Came from the Shire, didn't he! Yes, yes, but we don't know where that is, do we? No, no.

Mouth of Sauron: You lie!

Gollum: No!

Mouth of Sauron: My master demands the truth!

Gollum: No, no, precious, we don't lie! Do we? No.

[The torture and screams of Gollum fade away]

Gollum: We told the master all we know! Haven't we? Yes, yes! Yes!

- - - - -

And who was Baggins? He was Mr. Bilbo Baggins. And Mr. Bilbo Baggins was a hobbit. He had once lived at Bag End on the Hill, in the village of Hobbiton across the Water, in the Shire, in the peaceful Northwest of Middle-earth. Now, however, Bilbo was no longer the occupant of Bag End, and sinister shadows lengthened in the Shire. But let us go back seventeen years, to an evening in early September when the chief topic of conversation at the Ivy Bush Tavern in Hobbiton was Mr. Bilbo Baggins.

When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.

Bilbo was very rich and very peculiar, and had been the wonder of the Shire for sixty years, ever since his remarkable disappearance and unexpected return. The riches he had brought back from his travels had now become a local legend. There were some that shook their heads and thought this was too much of a good thing; it seemed unfair that anyone should possess (apparently) perpetual youth as well as (reputedly) inexhaustible wealth.

'Twill have to be paid for,' they said. 'Trouble will come of it!'

But so far trouble had not come and most people were willing to forgive him his oddities and his good fortune. He had many devoted admirers but no close friends, until some of his younger cousins began to grow up.

The eldest of these, and Bilbo's favourite, was young Frodo Baggins. When Bilbo was ninety-nine, he adopted Frodo as his heir, and brought him to live at Bag End and now it was understood that something quite exceptional was being planned for that autumn.

Tongues began to wag in Hobbiton and Bywater and no one had a more attentive audience than old Ham Gamgee, known as the Gaffer.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Long ago, in the early years of the Second Age, the great Elven-smiths forged Rings of Power. Nine for mortal Men, seven for the Dwarflords, three for the tall Elf-kings. But then the Dark Lord learned the craft of ring making and made the Master Ring. The One Ring to rule them all.

The portion I've placed in bold print is misleading if not out and out wrong, isn't it? Sauron didn't learn the craft of ring making after the other rings of power were made. He taught the Elves of Eregion the craft! Silly Bakshi.

I amar prestar aen... (The world is changed)
han mathon ne nen...(I feel it in the water)
han mathon ne chae...(I feel it in the Earth)
a han noston ned 'wilith. (I smell it in the air)

Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens did a lot of cannibalizing of Tolkien's book, i.e., taking text from one part of the story and placing it in another, often uttered by a different character. Much of it I thought was better left in its original place. This particular bit, however, I thought was very effectively used.

In Tolkien's book these words are uttered by Treebeard to Celeborn and Galadriel in the chapter “Many Partings” from The Return of the King:

'It is long, long since we met by stock or by stone, A vanimar, vanimálion nostari! [Treeebeard] said. ‘It is sad that we should meet only thus at the ending. For the world is changing: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell it in the air. I do not think we shall meet again.’

And Celeborn said: ‘I do not know, Eldest.’ But Galadriel said: ‘Not in Middle-earth, nor until the lands that lie under the waves are lifted up again. Then in the willow-meads of Tasarinan we may meet in the Spring. Farewell!’

Spying? Prying? We meant no harm, precious! Did we? No.

I love that line.

The late Peter Woodthorpe portrayed Gollum in both Bakshi's and the BBC's radio dramatization, btw. Sometimes his characterization reminds me a bit of Renfield from Dracula, but overall he was superb in the role.

[MithLuin]

I do like how PJ's version isn't...so history-textbook. It is very easy to do a Prologue like in Dune, where they are trying to teach you the rules and history and politics of the world, just to get started. Rather, with the beginning being about the changing of the world, and spoken in Elvish...there is a very other-worldly or ancient feel to it. This is story, myth and legend...not matter-of-fact history. It is a good set-up, before getting on to the basic exposition. It reminds me most of "A thousand years ago, the crystal cracked" at the beginning of the Dark Crystal. (Another well-done Prologue, in my opinion).

Bakshi has some "factual" issues - Sauron apparently learned Ring-making from the Elves, and then defeated the Last Alliance...and then created Nazgûl . While such things bother me, I am willing to (on one level) take them in stride. In PJ's version, Isildur was the last king of Gondor, I think. Obviously, that isn't "true", but it he doesn't want to explain any more and "makes" it true, that is his business. I would complain about these details in Bakshi, since they do little for his story (the change serves no purpose). But then, it doesn't damage (much) either. I do praise his version for the presentation of Isildur as a hero, not a failure. That seems more in keeping with Tolkien's portrayal of him in late Third Age ME (after all, only Elrond and Círdan know of his "error"). His Sméagol/Déagol exchange is also very faithful, though they "give away" Bilbo's surprise before we meet him.

If I am not misunderstanding it, the BBC version does not "give away" that Gollum's ring is the One Ring yet, does it? Merely that he has one such ring.... If so, that is the most faithful intro, in revealing only background and no "surprises". Gollum's torture is clearly a scene created by them, but it is in keeping with what Gandalf suggests actually happened. Gollum's dialogue is very "Gollum-ish"

The Mind's Eye version can barely be called an adaptation. It seems they are reading the book aloud While introducing Bilbo and Frodo is key...you would think they could do that with dialogue, not narrative. Rather a waste of a prologue, in my opinion.

Edit: We don't have a lol emoticon? What am I missing? (I know about the rofl one)

[Alatar]

Reading through them again, I have to agree that the ME version is not so much adaptation as condensation, and clumsy condensation at that. For example:

the riches he had brought back from his travels had now become a local legend. There were some that shook their heads and thought this was too much of a good thing

The missing line robs this sentence of its meaning. The "too much of a good thing" refers to Bilbo's seeming perpetual youth which has not yet been mentioned, but is then subsequently referred to as if it had been. This is the problem with lifting sentences verbatim.

PJ's sets a nice mood, and crucially establishes the Rings as in some way sentient.

And the Ring of Power has a will of its own. It betrayed Isildur to his death.

<snip>

Rumor grew of a shadow in the east, whispers of a nameless fear, and the Ring of Power perceived. Its time had now come.

It abandoned Gollum.

But something happened then the Ring did not intend. It was picked up by the most unlikely creature imaginable.

This is a very brave move, trusting the audience very early on to think outside their usual parameters. Also, there is the mix between a historical retelling and the subsequent assertion that this history is no longer remembered as fact, but is now merely Myth. This sets the stage for a simple folk who no longer even believe in the Dark Lord. Even Frodo (an educated hobbit) is later shown to have believed Sauron to be dead. This creates a nice counterpoint, and sets our diminutive hero against a backdrop so vast that he is not even aware of it.

The RB version is at best clumsy and at worst confusing. As already pointed out, its factually incorrect in a number of points. This is, and continues later to be, Bakshis biggest flaw. People who see the movie without having read the book, simply don't know what's going on.

The BBC prologue is, to my mind the best piece of adaptation. Very little is "narrated". Indeed, all we get by way of general introduction is the following:

Long years ago, in the Second Age of Middle-earth, the Elven-smiths of Eregion forged rings of great power. Then the Dark Lord Sauron forged One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom in the land of Mordor. This Ring he made to rule the others, and their power was bound up with it, so that they could last only so long as it too should last. And from that time, war never ceased between Sauron and the Elves.

Three rings they hid from him. But the others he gathered into his hands, hoping to make himself master of all things. Then was an alliance made against the Dark Lord, and Sauron was, for that time, vanquished. But at length, his dark shadow stretched forth once more, and he sought again for mastery over the Rings of Power.

The next sentence is properly considered an introduction to the the dialogue immediately following. This piece is concisely written and imparts the following important information in an interesting way.

Gollum had one of the rings
Sauron knows of it
Bilbo has it
Sauron now knows of the Shire and Baggins and a Ring of Power.

It also tells us that Gollum was willing to withstand torture before he would reveal the location of the ring. In other words, that there was strength in this miserable creature to resist the Nazgûl and Sauron. To the virgin reader (or listener) his allegience is ambiguous.

The final sentence of the prologue is wonderfully constructed:

And who was Baggins? He was Mr. Bilbo Baggins. And Mr. Bilbo Baggins was a hobbit. He had once lived at Bag End on the Hill, in the village of Hobbiton across the Water, in the Shire, in the peaceful Northwest of Middle-earth. Now, however, Bilbo was no longer the occupant of Bag End, and sinister shadows lengthened in the Shire. But let us go back seventeen years, to an evening in early September when the chief topic of conversation at the Ivy Bush Tavern in Hobbiton was Mr. Bilbo Baggins.

Using one of Tolkiens own tricks, we are told the current state of play in bald fact, then brought back in time to find out the how and why.


Anyone want to guess which adaptation I think is best?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, at least as to the prologue, you say so straight out.

I don't have a lot to add (particularly since I am really only intimately familiar with PJ's version), but I just wanted to say that I am greatly appreciating your comments. I know from my own experience that it is nice to know, and I hope that it helps encourage you to persevere.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Anyone want to guess which adaptation I think is best?

I thought about this comment at work today as I listened once more to (a portion of) the BBC production. I thought, too, of Prim's remark:

It's going to be hard for me to divorce the script from everything else for the three adaptations I'm reasonably familiar with, but I'll try!

To be fair, the level of difficulty for Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens was much greater than for Sibley et al. Sibley didn't have to worry about costumes, sets, props, stunts, digital effects, weather, and so on. I presume that the BBC dramatization was all recorded in a studio.

Sibley's audience was also relatively limited, and I don't think he had the pressure of having to make megabucks with his production. Jackson had to make three films that appealed to a much larger audience. That, perhaps, excuses some of Jackson's diversions from Tolkien's work. I don't think it entirely excuses the sophomoric behavior in some of the scenes, however.

Sibley's adaptation was also released in thirteen one-hour increments, I believe, rather than three three-hour increments. I think sustaining tension and drama for a single hour is quite a bit easier than for three hours (or more).

With all of that said, I don't know that it's really fair to compare the two based on script alone, or perhaps it isn't fair to compare the two at all. I really like Sibley's adaptation for the sake of its faithfulness to the book, and it's ability to capture TOLKIEN. Jackson's films are a visual spectacle, but I think his adaptation is something less than Tolkienesque.