When I was a child, my mother got very excited about an upcoming children’s television special–something I don’t remember her doing before or since. She told me that I had to see The Hobbit. Catching her enthusiasm, I sat down in front of the TV at the appointed hour and was pulled into an enthralling tale of wizards, elves, dwarves, dragons, and a strange being I’d never heard of: a hobbit. Two hours later (I assume it was two hours with commercials), I had hobbit fever. I pulled The Hobbit and, later, The Lord of the Rings off my parents’ bookshelves and devoured them. Somehow, either as a gift or purchased with my own savings, I obtained the original soundtrack to the special and listened to it again and again. I insisted on seeing Ralph Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings (and at the time, I liked it). I fervently wished that hobbits were real and that I could meet one.
I was obsessed.
I don’t remember any other cartoon affecting me quite so much. What was it about this one that so enchanted me? First and foremost is Tolkien’s story, neatly condensed into a 90-minute format. Although this Rankin/Bass production is shorter than The Battle of Five Armies, the shortest of the movies in Peter Jackson’s trilogy, it somehow manages to capture most of the book, except for Beorn. (I’ll come back to Jackson’s trilogy in a moment.)
The voice actors are also good, especially the narrator and Gandalf, both voiced by John Huston. The cast includes Orson Bean, Richard Boone, Cyril Ritchard, and Otto Preminger. Paul Frees, whose voice can be heard in many a Rankin/Bass movie, voiced Bombur and “Troll #1,” and voice actor Don Messick was Balin, a goblin, the Lord of the Eagles, and “Troll #3.”
Then there’s the music, some of it sung by Glenn Yarbrough. I’ve read The Hobbit aloud to both my husband and my child, and in each instance, I had a hard time not singing Tolkien’s songs as they were written in this film (they are not exactly the same, so if you do start singing the Rankin/Bass tunes to Tolkien’s words, eventually you’ll have to start improvising).
Put it all together, and you get this:
In just over three and a half minutes, the folks at Rankin/Bass have distilled the essence of the party’s first encounter with the goblins, and they’ve done it well.
I think few, if any, people will dispute that Peter Jackson did an amazing job with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, finally giving fans what we’d been wanting. Understandably, we were all excited when we learned he’d be directing The Hobbit as well. And then, many of us were disappointed.
There was value to Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. I thought Martin Freeman was a perfect pick for Bilbo, and I was glad Ian McKellan was once again playing Gandalf. I thought the first movie wasn’t bad. I very much enjoyed Bilbo’s encounter with Smaug in the second movie. But the further into the trilogy I got, the more disappointed I was with Jackson’s additions: unbelievable action sequences that weren’t in the book (as if the book wasn’t action-packed enough) and an unnecessary love triangle.
By using three movies to tell the story, Jackson had room to include what Rankin/Bass left out, particularly Beorn. But with three movies to fill, he ended up padding a masterpiece. What the Rankin/Bass production gets right is letting Tolkien’s tale shine through. The Hobbit works better as an abridged work rather than as a story that has been supplemented with additional plotlines.
If you are a Tolkien fan who was disappointed in Jackson’s trilogy and who hasn’t seen the Rankin/Bass version, I encourage you to seek it out. And if you have young children you want to convert into little hobbit fans, by all means show them the cartoon. It’s definitely a ’70s production and not up to today’s cartoon standards, but in the end, it will still do an excellent job of telling Tolkien’s story. Forty-five years after it was released, it’s still the best film version we have, and a pretty good one at that.
14 replies on “The Best Film Version of The Hobbit Is a 1977 Cartoon”
I think you are absolutely right, Kate. Partly that is because Peter Jackson’s reckless exploitation of the original story is so WRONG in so many ways. And, hence, mainly because the 1977 animation stayed so close to the original story. This is almost always a good thing for a film to do when it is based on a book. I have not seen the 1977 cartoon version of “The Hobbit”, but that short clip of the dwarves and Bilbo being captured showed the goblins (later referred to as “orcs”, of course, in “Lord of the Rings”) violently. (Peter Jackson’s orcs are even more monstrous — something I did not imagine from reading “Lord of the Rings”.) But I understand that the goblins have to be shown as very different from hobbits, elves, dwarves, and humans. (I imagined the goblins as “bent” humans, rather than not-so-human bipeds with ferocious teeth and gaping drooling jaws.)
Can I ask if the cartoon version presents Smaug with the right kind of seething, controlled menace that properly represents the book?
And is Beorn well visualised?
And is the bowman who kills Smaug a brave, but otherwise unassuming human?
As a book, “The Hobbit” begins in a childishly simple way. But by the time we meet Smaug, and are confronted by the wrath of the dwarves against Blibo, the mood is very somber. Does the cartoon respect that?
Obviously I am curious about small details.
But let me add that you correctly praise the 1977 animation as the BEST film version — so far! Well done!
Here are the concluding scenes. A Google search can find other YouTube pieces, but so far I have not found the whole film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2gE7-J9B6w
Thannk you!
I do think the cartoon did a good job with Smaug. Beorn, unfortunately, was left out. I understand why — there’s only so much you can fit into an hour and a half — but it is too bad. Bard is a little different in the cartoon than in the book; the movie leaves out the Master of Laketown, so Bard appears to be more of a leader from the very first time we meet him. I hope you are able to see the whole cartoon!
Kate, I an going to search out the cartoon version right now. It will be fun to travel back in time, like discovering it anew. Thanks.
Kate–I want to let you know that I did find a dvd version of the cartoon version at my local library. Thanks!
Wonderful!
This post made me so happy and I’m glad to remember that the cartoon turned you into a Hobbit lover.
Thank you, Mom! I’m glad you made sure I watched it!
Hi Kate, Thank you for sharing this. I have never read the books, went to 2 of Peter Jackson’s movies and was not hooked. Maybe I would have been, had I see the animation — what I saw was engaging. That said, one thing my intuition is telling me is that our granddaughter would probably love the animation, so I too, will try to find a copy of it for her.
If she watches it, let me know what she thinks!
I will do that!
Hello, Linda Clover. May I recommend the book! Please? “The Hobbit” was written for Tolkien’s children, but it as some serious appeal for adult readers. I recommend that “Lord of the Rings”, the book, better than Peter Jackson’s epic films, should not be read by children younger than twelve, but I could be wrong. “Lord of the Rings” (the book) is a profoundly serious adult saga, and not a Hollywood blockbuster, even though Peter Jackson made a good fantasy adventure out of it.
Regarding what John said about the books and children: I read The Hobbit in third grade; I was probably about nine years old when I read it. I read The Lord of the Rings the next year. On the one hand, I’m impressed that I made it through. I know some adults who get bogged down with the battle scenes. That’s understandable. Probably because it was not filled with battles, the first book in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Fellowship of the Rings, was my favorite of the series by far. But I read all three and wanted still more (at which point my mom told me there was The Silmarillion, but that it was not like the others and had no hobbits, and she didn’t recommend that I tackle it at that time). So a child can make it through The Lord of the Rings and still be absolutely in love with Tolkien’s Middle Earth; however, I clearly didn’t absorb everything. The next year for Halloween, I decided I wanted to be a character from the books. I was thinking of Eowyn, but I got her a little confused with Galadriel and ended up with a mash-up: “Galadriel, the Battle-Elf.” I also was deeply troubled by the end of the trilogy; it wasn’t the happily-ever-after I was hoping for, since Frodo’s adventure affected him in a far more painful way than Bilbo’s had. In short, I agree with John: While a child may be able to read the trilogy, they’ll probably get more out of it if they wait a little.
Hi Kate, Thank you for your recommendation. You may have seen that I was considering buying her the trilogy if she liked the animated movie. I’d forgotten that it was the “Lord of the Rings” movie that ended my interest in the trilogy at that time. I’ enjoyed reading reading a little more background on your involvement with the trilogy. I hope Avalyn will embrace reading as much as you did. She likes action and likes to create fantasy, and she also enjoys movies. It’s also clear that she can sound out 3 letter words. But getting her to sit and be read to is quite difficult. I don’t know what to make of it and am hoping that she’ll love reading as Michelle did or at least as much as I did. But, time will tell and I know that all you can do is present good things to a child and let them decide how they feel about them. Thanks again!
Hello, John. Thank you for your recommendation. I was thinking about getting her the trilogy if she liked the movie. Right now, at the age of 5, she appears to be on the cusp of reading. She seems to enjoy lots of action and adventure and tends to like fantasy and to create it. But that’s fairly typical at her age. I think both you and Kate are “spot on in regard to “Lord of the Rings.” That was the 2nd movie I saw and that was the end of the trilogy for me — at that time. Now I know why and appreciate that. Both of you have a lot of valuable insight and I truly appreciate the benefit of it. I will take your thoughts to heart. Thank you for thinking of our granddaughter!