When Good Fantasy Goes Bad
The Never-ending trend of fantasy films that suck.
      by Christina Brzustoski

Val Kilmer as Willow's Mad Martigan.

Ever wanted to live with the elves in Rivendell or wished for the Goblins to take your younger sibling away for playing those CDs too loudly? Or to ride a luckdragon and scare away your bullying schoolmates in the ultimate act of a nerd's revenge? Fantasy fans -- even if they're ashamed to admit it -- have long escaped reality with such wonderfully dreamy tales as Lord of the Rings, The Never-ending Story, and Jim Henson's Labyrinth.

So why, then, do these movies almost inevitably suck? The three animated films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's epic masterpiece Lord of the Rings -- arguably the greatest fantasy-adventure books of all time -- have elves with bad German accents (Rankin-Bass's The Hobbit), brave heroes who don't wear real pants (Aragorn and that hideous "tunic" in Ralph Bakshi's abysmal Lord of the Rings), and whiny, sputtering hobbits voiced by Roddy McDowell (Samwise Gamgee in Rankin-Bass's Return of the King). What the hell went wrong?

Okay, to be fair, I admit I adored all these movies as a small child. How cool was The Never-ending Story to a bookworm who would spend recess reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe on the playground or search her closet for a portal into Narnia? It never worked, unfortunately, but when I sat and watched the Childlike Empress as she told Bastian that he was part of the story, that he had the power to save Fantasia because he lived and suffered with them through the book, it was incredibly impressive to any fantasy-prone child with an active imagination.

David Bowie as the Goblin King in Labyrinth.

Actually, it's not usually the story itself that's usually the problem with these movies, but the execution of it on film. Labyrinth had a pretty neat little tale behind it: the Goblin King secretly falls in love with a young, rather fantasy-prone Jennifer Connelly, willing to grant any of her wishes. Both the animated The Last Unicorn and the animatronics-laden Never-ending Story have the same underlying theme of loneliness -- something any fantasy buff is sure to be familiar with, likely spending more time with books, computers and TV than actual real-life friends.

But now fantasy seems to be becoming a rather hot property again, what with people waiting in line at midnight, dressed in wizard robes and lightning scars painted on their foreheads to be the first to buy the phenomenally successful Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, a book of all possible things. Harry and his own upcoming movie series, as well as New Line's widely anticipated Lord of the Rings trilogy and this December's Rings warm-up Dungeons and Dragons, will soon bring fantasy back in full force to the big screen. Will this new crop of fantasy movies succeed where so many others have failed? Is it possible that Peter Jackson could make a crappier version of Rings than Ralph Bakshi? Will Daniel Radcliffe be able to act? Can Dungeons and Dragons actually be a good movie?

Here's The 11th Hour's run-down of fantasy's past and a future that just might mean a renaissance of the genre. Er, or maybe just some fantasy movies that might not suck.

Fantasy's Past: The Good, the Bad and the Downright Unwatchable

THE LORD OF THE RINGS (1978)
Directed by Ralph Bakshi
Written by Peter S. Beagle, Chris Conkling

The biggest sham of them all, the mortifying Bakshi production is enough to send a shudder through many a Tolkien fan. Part animation, part live action, this film is the reason many fans are frightened by the prospect of Peter Jackson's upcoming adaptation.

Aragorn bemoans his lack of pants in Lord of the Rings.

What's good about it: Parts of this film are actually watchable, even enjoyable, particularly the beginning scenes in the Shire and at the Prancing Pony. I've always wanted to hear Tolkien's songs with music, and Frodo's ill-fated little song-and-jig at the inn is fun to watch. Then it all goes horribly wrong.

What went wrong: Bakshi's film was originally planned as a two-parter, until the second part was canceled; hence we have the main problem. The film ends with a battle scene that mashes the Battle of Helm's Deep and the final stand against Sauron -- and every fight in between -- into one big, blurry battle. Then Bakshi skips over Frodo and Sam's journey into Mordor and the destruction of the One Ring -- a pretty important plot point, seeing as how the title is Lord of the RINGS and all.

Then there's the name situation. Apparently, Bakshi and crew thought that two villainous characters whose names begin with the same letter would confuse their viewers, even if most of them had already read the book. So Saruman, the wizard seduced by the Dark Side of the, er, Ring becomes the evil Aruman, not to be confused with Sauron, the Dark Lord of the Rings himself. Yet apparently this was still confusing, because the filmmakers forgot about the change, and by the second half of the movie, Aruman was reborn as Saruman. What would we have done if Bakshi hadn't clarified this for us?

Lastly, there's the animation itself. Someone (on crack, possibly) must have thought it would be a good idea to mix live action and cartoon. But Roger Rabbit of the Rings, it isn't. What results is a surreal style where you can see the faces of real actors behind crappily-drawn cartoon characters. Creepy.

Overall: Well, since this Lord of the Rings was never finished -- even after it was released, it seems (see the above Aruman/Saruman dilemma) -- maybe it's not fair to say this is the worst adaptation of Tolkien ever. But it is.

THE HOBBIT (1978)
Directed by Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin, Jr.
Written by Romeo Muller

This made-for-TV movie is a slightly better Tolkien adaptation, but it's impossible to fit all the details of the 300-page Hobbit into 78 minutes.

Biblo confronts G-rated spiders in The Hobbit.

What's good about it: The gritty, grainy animation style gives a good feel to the stark Middle Earth, even if in reality it's just bad 70s animation. And the voices, particularly John Huston as Gandalf and Orson Bean as the hobbit-hero Bilbo Baggins, are especially good. It also covers most of the essential plot points, unlike Bakshi's movie, and is the most enjoyable of all the Tolkien adaptations. And those funny dwarves are pretty cool.

What went wrong: Anyone who's read The Hobbit will find the Rankin-Bass production to be extremely rushed. Besides ignoring the rather essential Arkenstone, Bilbo seems to get to Smaug the Dragon pretty quickly, leaving you with just a glimpse of Middle Earth in all its glory.

Then there's the inhabitants of Middle Earth. The nasty little elves who sound like they're soldiers in the Third Reich aren't anything close to how Tolkien described them. In the books, the elves are always described as ageless, almost divine creatures with mystical singing abilities. Rankin and Bass give us elves that look like drowned rats and sound like a slightly matured version of Alvin and the Chipmunks. The evil orcs (or goblins) are supposed to be hideously foul monsters, and well, they are, but more in a Porky-Pig-on-crack way.

And sure, these films are meant for children, but does that mean that we can't have even a little bit of violence? As Bilbo attacks a nest of ugly spiders, they do a weird kaleidoscope kind of thing, then disappear. That's a little unnatural.

Overall: Definitely fun to watch, but would be even better if it was longer to include a lot more of those wonderful landscapes and adventures of Bilbo and his dwarves.

RETURN OF THE KING (1980)
Directed by Rankin and Bass
Written by Romeo Muller

Another Rankin-Bass production that is short on story.

What's good about it: The same cast as The Hobbit gives Return the same positive aspect. Plus we get to see some cool scenes from the defense of Minas Tirith, like bad-ass warrior chick Eowyn revealing her true identity ("But no living man am I!") in her death-defying stance against the Nazgul King.

The story also begins rather cleverly in an allusion to a conversation between Frodo and Sam during their journeys in Mordor with a minstrel singing about "Frodo of the nine fingers."

What went wrong: Same problem as always -- the rather short running-time leaves little room for the whole story. And if that wasn't bad enough, we're subjected to Roddy McDowell and his abysmally blustering performance as Sam Gamgee.

Overall: This much-abbreviated cartoon completely skips the first two books, and glosses over much of the third. But at least it has a real ending, unlike the mashed finale of Bakshi's film.

Next Page >