A Long Lost Adaptation of The Hobbit Makes Its Way Online

[ThunderCavalier]

I'm not quite sure whether we should commend this man for managing to get a profit out of this license for pulling off a rather ingenious loophole in the contracts, or flog him for destroying Tolkien lore with this abomination.

Which is, and I regret to say... is still better than Twilight.

 

[Smiles]

Wow, I haven't read the Hobbit in a long time but I don't really like the artistic lisence that guy took with his animated short. Ah well, but at least no one treated the project seriously...

Looking foreward to the new film ^^

 

[Madhog]

Thank you for clarifying that to me. I appreciate that you took your time to comment on my little fanboysh outburst.
(personally, I don't even like the Deitch's version of "Tom & Jerry"

 

[F'Angus]

Hahaha

They almost got eaten by Ents...sort of.

I love this version.

 

[Briney-]

Huh. Well, that was entertaining! Definitely good for a laugh.

Can't wait to see Peter Jackson's version of The Hobbit.

 

[rofltehcat]

wat teh fuk?

Seriously, those were only like 12 different pictures that were animated by zooming towards different areas and shaking them a little. Is that really what "the best talent" could do in the 60s?

 

[Zom-B]

wat teh fuk?

Seriously, those were only like 12 different pictures that were animated by zooming towards different areas and shaking them a little. Is that really what "the best talent" could do in the 60s?

You realize that all that art was hand-painted by one artist, filmed, voiced, edited and in the can in less than 30 days, right?

 

[Margaret Trauth]

Mike, I'm afraid your clarification is still wrong. Deitch did not make "many" of the Tom and Jerry shorts. He made a few.

Cut and paste of my lengthy comment elsewhere on this:

Gene Deitch made some very unique Tom & Jerry cartoons, but he is by no means "the man behind Tom & Jerry". That honor belongs to Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera, of later Hanna-Barbera fame. Bill and Joe created the duo at MGM in 1939, with the first short released in 1940. They made 114 cartoons about them in the next twenty years.

Much later, a few years after Bill and Joe had left MGM to form their well-known TV animation studio, MGM wanted some more T&J cartoons made. They ended up contracting out to Deitch's studio in Prague for them. He made 13.

Deitch is on record as not actually liking T&J much. He and his studio only saw a tiny handful of cartoons for reference. The budget was minimal. The resulting shorts are some of the most... um... *distinctive* T&J shorts made. They are not among the best. But they are distinctive. The soundtracks are spare. Sound effects are weird electronic noises. The cartoons are not timed or paced like any other short you've ever seen. They are, in a word, *broken*.

There is a hypnotic appeal to this sheer *wrongness*, but this is an appeal that's really only available to the jaded connoisseur of animation, similar to the way some hardened music fans claim to actually, unironically, like the Shags. Deitch's T&J shorts are outsider art. If you think you're ready for them, I suggest the first one delivered, [Switchin' Kitten](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p11v4RKvH5o). It's a nightmarish introduction to the alien world of Deitch's T&J work.

He deserves a place in animation history for his lovely work in pioneering highly-stylized animation at UPA. But nobody would ever call him "the man behind Tom and Jerry".

 

[Robot-Jesus]

The animation, if you can call it that, looks more like Alex Anderson to me.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Believe it not, there was once a time when no one knew what the hell a "hobbit" was. In fact, it wasn't until thirty years after its publication that anyone paid much attention to J.R.R. Tolkien's little children's adventure book at all.

That's just unabashedly false (and poorly researched). It was praised everywhere upon publication. In fact, the year it came out, 1937, Tolkien's publisher asked for a sequel (which in publishing is generally only asked for if there's money to be made by doing so). Tolkien gave him The Silmarillion. The publisher asked for "more hobbits" (or something to that regard) based on how popular The Hobbit was. And that's how we got The Lord of the Rings.

What you're thinking of is (and what's discussed in the article) that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were repopularized during the '60s as a symbol of the counterculture. But all those college kids reading it then had probably had it read to them as children by their parents, who had themselves read it during their youth in 1937.

'The Silmarillion' wasn't published until a few years after Tolkien had died in the late 1970's. It was actually unfinished, but edited and rounded out by his nephew Christopher before being published in 1977. It's right there on Wikipedia. So ya, before you call someone out on not doing their homework make sure you do yours.

OT: Well that was weird. I think I'll just be glad this was never actually released.

 

[esperandote]

I thought it was good. What he got pales compared to what the franchise worth now.

The audience for the premiere was plucked straight from the sidewalk at $0.10 admission

I was most amused by this part.

 

[esperandote]

Believe it not, there was once a time when no one knew what the hell a "hobbit" was. In fact, it wasn't until thirty years after its publication that anyone paid much attention to J.R.R. Tolkien's little children's adventure book at all.

That's just unabashedly false (and poorly researched). It was praised everywhere upon publication. In fact, the year it came out, 1937, Tolkien's publisher asked for a sequel (which in publishing is generally only asked for if there's money to be made by doing so). Tolkien gave him The Silmarillion. The publisher asked for "more hobbits" (or something to that regard) based on how popular The Hobbit was. And that's how we got The Lord of the Rings.

What you're thinking of is (and what's discussed in the article) that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were repopularized during the '60s as a symbol of the counterculture. But all those college kids reading it then had probably had it read to them as children by their parents, who had themselves read it during their youth in 1937.

'The Silmarillion' wasn't published until a few years after Tolkien had died in the late 1970's. It was actually unfinished, but edited and rounded out by his nephew Christopher before being published in 1977. It's right there on Wikipedia. So ya, before you call someone out on not doing their homework make sure you do yours.

OT: Well that was weird. I think I'll just be glad this was never actually released.

You mean his son Christopher.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Believe it not, there was once a time when no one knew what the hell a "hobbit" was. In fact, it wasn't until thirty years after its publication that anyone paid much attention to J.R.R. Tolkien's little children's adventure book at all.

That's just unabashedly false (and poorly researched). It was praised everywhere upon publication. In fact, the year it came out, 1937, Tolkien's publisher asked for a sequel (which in publishing is generally only asked for if there's money to be made by doing so). Tolkien gave him The Silmarillion. The publisher asked for "more hobbits" (or something to that regard) based on how popular The Hobbit was. And that's how we got The Lord of the Rings.

What you're thinking of is (and what's discussed in the article) that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were repopularized during the '60s as a symbol of the counterculture. But all those college kids reading it then had probably had it read to them as children by their parents, who had themselves read it during their youth in 1937.

'The Silmarillion' wasn't published until a few years after Tolkien had died in the late 1970's. It was actually unfinished, but edited and rounded out by his nephew Christopher before being published in 1977. It's right there on Wikipedia. So ya, before you call someone out on not doing their homework make sure you do yours.

OT: Well that was weird. I think I'll just be glad this was never actually released.

You mean his son Christopher.

Right. My mistake. For some reason I'd always thought J.R.R. had never had children.

 

[esperandote]

You mean his son Christopher.

Right. My mistake. For some reason I'd always thought J.R.R. had never had children.

And i always thought he had just one kid.

 

[Neverhoodian]

You know, that was actually quite enjoyable on its own merits. I really liked the artwork and the narrator's voice.

(Though my inner Tolkien fanboy is quietly whimpering in a fetal position)

 

[HobbesMkii]

Believe it not, there was once a time when no one knew what the hell a "hobbit" was. In fact, it wasn't until thirty years after its publication that anyone paid much attention to J.R.R. Tolkien's little children's adventure book at all.

That's just unabashedly false (and poorly researched). It was praised everywhere upon publication. In fact, the year it came out, 1937, Tolkien's publisher asked for a sequel (which in publishing is generally only asked for if there's money to be made by doing so). Tolkien gave him The Silmarillion. The publisher asked for "more hobbits" (or something to that regard) based on how popular The Hobbit was. And that's how we got The Lord of the Rings.

What you're thinking of is (and what's discussed in the article) that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were repopularized during the '60s as a symbol of the counterculture. But all those college kids reading it then had probably had it read to them as children by their parents, who had themselves read it during their youth in 1937.

'The Silmarillion' wasn't published until a few years after Tolkien had died in the late 1970's. It was actually unfinished, but edited and rounded out by his nephew Christopher before being published in 1977. It's right there on Wikipedia. So ya, before you call someone out on not doing their homework make sure you do yours.

I never said in my post that The Silmarillion was published immediately after The Hobbit. You misread between the lines and assumed that. I said that it was what Tolkien turned in first, before The Lord of the Rings. The publisher rejected it and asked for more Hobbits. This, too, I believe you can look up on Wikipedia. Cheers.

 

[sir.rutthed]

You mean his son Christopher.

Right. My mistake. For some reason I'd always thought J.R.R. had never had children.

And i always thought he had just one kid.

I see what you did there. Jackass.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Just when I thought the Ranken/Bass and Backshe cartoon were the worst adaptations of Tolkein's work...
someone finds this.

 

[esperandote]

You mean his son Christopher.

Right. My mistake. For some reason I'd always thought J.R.R. had never had children.

And i always thought he had just one kid.

I see what you did there. Jackass.

I don't. What did i do???

 

[josemlopes]

Mike, I'm afraid your clarification is still wrong. Deitch did not make "many" of the Tom and Jerry shorts. He made a few.

Cut and paste of my lengthy comment elsewhere on this:

Gene Deitch made some very unique Tom & Jerry cartoons, but he is by no means "the man behind Tom & Jerry". That honor belongs to Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera, of later Hanna-Barbera fame. Bill and Joe created the duo at MGM in 1939, with the first short released in 1940. They made 114 cartoons about them in the next twenty years.

Much later, a few years after Bill and Joe had left MGM to form their well-known TV animation studio, MGM wanted some more T&J cartoons made. They ended up contracting out to Deitch's studio in Prague for them. He made 13.

Deitch is on record as not actually liking T&J much. He and his studio only saw a tiny handful of cartoons for reference. The budget was minimal. The resulting shorts are some of the most... um... *distinctive* T&J shorts made. They are not among the best. But they are distinctive. The soundtracks are spare. Sound effects are weird electronic noises. The cartoons are not timed or paced like any other short you've ever seen. They are, in a word, *broken*.

There is a hypnotic appeal to this sheer *wrongness*, but this is an appeal that's really only available to the jaded connoisseur of animation, similar to the way some hardened music fans claim to actually, unironically, like the Shags. Deitch's T&J shorts are outsider art. If you think you're ready for them, I suggest the first one delivered, [Switchin' Kitten](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p11v4RKvH5o). It's a nightmarish introduction to the alien world of Deitch's T&J work.

He deserves a place in animation history for his lovely work in pioneering highly-stylized animation at UPA. But nobody would ever call him "the man behind Tom and Jerry".

Yep, just searched some videos on youtube and I do remember those episodes being diferent although they do have some charm