Fans eagerly awaiting the release of Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" shouldn't complain too loudly about the fact that the films won't be completed until 2003 - after all, it has taken almost half a century for a live-action version of Tolkien's epic to reach the screen.
The story of "The Lord of the Rings" ' cinematic birth is almost as complicated as the plot of the book itself. Shortly after the final volume of Tolkien's masterpiece reached bookshops in 1955, the author was inundated with offers from the film industry. Torn between art or cash, Tolkien decided to take the money and run, sacrificing all opportunity to influence any future film adaptations.
In the decades that followed, "The Lord of the Rings" proved to be something of a hot potato. Disney held the rights from the late 1950s, but their enthusiasm for the project quickly faltered. The world of Middle Earth was too dark and brooding for a studio best known for cute, family animations. Stanley Kubrick considered a film version, but he dropped it in favour of other projects. John Boorman also gave it some thought, but made the sword and sorcery "Excalibur" instead.
The rights continued to gather dust until 1978, when Ralph Bakshi secured financing for a cartoon version of the story. Best known for his X-rated "Fritz the Cat", Bakshi's work was the antithesis of Disney's family pictures. Using an innovative animation technique known as rotoscoping (drawing over the movements of live actors), he created a version of "The Lord of the Rings" that was visually impressive, but sadly incomplete. The final part of the story remained unfilmed and Bakshi's promised sequel never materialised.
As he looks forward to his 2003 deadline, Peter Jackson must be praying that such bad luck isn't hobbit-forming.
Read about heroic fantasy in the cinema and why "The Lord of the Rings" is likely to succeed.
Visit the official "" website.
The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external websites.
