I've Seen Every The Lord Of The Rings Movie And TV Show And The Fellowship Of The Ring Is The Best Adaptation Of The Original Books

Almost exactly 25 years after its release, there's no getting around it: The first modern live-action adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" still remains the best and most faithful one ever made. Granted, diehard fans of author J.R.R. Tolkien may point to some of the more idiosyncratic gifts we've been given over the decades. The animated Ralph Bakshi and Rankin-Bass "Lord of the Rings" movies loom large as stepping stones (and visual inspirations) for what came after, while some intrepid viewers might even stick up for Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" trilogy, a tonally lighter (but undeniably messier) take on what was intended as a straightforward children's story. Even Prime Video's "The Rings of Power" series has its defenders, though the malleable nature of its source material and its complicated rights issues muddy the waters when it comes to comparisons with the original text.

No, there's a very good reason why "The Fellowship of the Ring" (the extended edition, specifically) maintains its title over any other effort that's come before or since ... including the two sequels that followed in its footsteps. Actually, there are several reasons. Before the trilogy-opening blockbuster debuted back in December of 2001, the prevailing thought was that Tolkien's most famous work could never be properly brought to life on the big screen. Fantasy as a genre was considered too passé, the magical concepts and outlandish characters too absurd to be taken seriously, and its simple themes of good and evil too didactic for contemporary tastes.

And then, in one of the riskiest gambles in all of cinema history, an unlikely studio took a flier on a low-budget horror filmmaker and proved conventional wisdom hilariously wrong — a perfect mirror of the underdog story at the heart of the best adaptation of them all.

What comes to your imagination first when you think of "The Lord of the Rings"? Maybe it's all those battles and fight scenes involving massive armies and eye-popping visual effects. Then there's the mythic lore and world-building details, too, which take greater and greater precedence with each subsequent film. Or perhaps it's the epic scope and scale of the adventure, where the lush landscapes of New Zealand transformed into a character in its own right.

That last part best sums up why "The Fellowship of the Ring" stands so far apart from the rest. For everything that came after, this had the Herculean task of redefining Middle-earth from that point onwards — not merely the visuals but also intangibles like the tone and feel of it all. It's one thing to strictly recreate the rote descriptions of a landscape or city or armor, but it's quite another to recreate the feeling of reading those descriptions in J.R.R. Tolkien's original prose. That's the miracle Peter Jackson and his creative team pull off here, even as early as the opening prologue. Walking audiences through some of the most complicated bits of Middle-earth history, this daunting 12-minute sequence introduces entire locations, important figures, and difficult-to-grasp concepts so everyone could hit the ground running.

The three and a half hours that follow pick up that baton and further establish this world as a living and breathing entity. We care about the peril that the Dark Lord Sauron represents because of what it would mean to the humble, carefree Hobbits of the Shire. The stakes feel real because Middle-earth feels real without ever becoming derivative or trite. The sequels go bigger, but none nailed this tone better than "Fellowship."

How does one measure a "faithful" adaptation, anyway? For most fanbases, it seems nothing short of the strictest possible adherence to the source material will suffice. You can forget about making allowances for an entirely different medium – whether it be restructuring the plot, creative casting decisions, or pretty much anything else. This zero tolerance policy isn't only unnecessarily restrictive for any adaptation, but it also misses the point entirely. After all, "The Fellowship of the Ring" certainly is the most direct translation of the narrative beats of the book ... but that's not why it's the most faithful adaptation.

That has much more to do with director Peter Jackson and writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens picking and choosing exactly when to stick with J.R.R. Tolkien's words and when not to. Compared to the supercharged Battle of Helm's Deep in "The Two Towers" or entire swaths of "The Return of the King," "Fellowship" keeps any invented material to a bare minimum. But it still has the boldness to follow its own instincts when it matters most, wisely condensing a decades-long time jump from the book (which the upcoming "Hunt for Gollum" will explore) or combining Tolkien's unwieldy ensemble into a more streamlined cast of characters (giving individuals like Liv Tyler's Arwen more to do). Heck, remember that Uruk-hai Lurtz (Lawrence Makoare) hunting our heroes, culminating in a one-on-one duel with Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn? Completely made up for the movie!

Against all odds, this adds up to a stronger adaptation. Even if it's not a literal retelling of the book, none other best embodies its rugged, adventurous spirit. "Fellowship" passes the test, and may it be a lesson to us all.