What do you think of the Bakshi cartoon? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Cazoz

10-15-2002, 02:35 PM

I don't think I ever saw it as a bairn. My mate saw it in HMV on sale for 4 quid or something, and gave it to me for my birthday about a month ago (after watching it himself, jerk.) I found it agonising to watch. Not even due to the deviations from the book and the high esteem I hold the PJ film in, but simply because it was a rubbish cartoon, no matter what the story or history of it.The animation was dreadful, and I think it would only have been good if I was tripping on acid, or at least stoned. That's how random and surreal it looked. The background bits look like those shoody old Indian puppet shows they're using on the KFC ads, they were so wank. And the whole Saruman/Gandalf showdown was a joke, what were all those weird 'graphics' supposed to be? They looked like a fiver spent on trying to recreate the Northern Lights.Not to mention the terrible voicing and hideous representation of Elves. Although that having been said, I was still all "Bollocks!" when it ended at Helm's Deep. I wanted to see that piece of turd through, although God knows why.Could it even go full circle to total campness, the whole so bad, it's laughable and thus good in a cult way? I doubt it.

Tigerlily Gamgee

10-15-2002, 03:37 PM

Watching the cartoon, for me, is like having twelve gallons of boiling molasses poured in my bed as I sleep.

Diamond18

10-15-2002, 04:32 PM

I've never watched the cartoons, but at the library where I work there is a book of the Hobbit which is heavily illustrated with scenes from that cartoon.I've paged through it a couple times, the first time out of curiosity and the second time to see if I had just imagined it the first time.The Elves were little, twisted, odd green thingies! Gollum was a frog! Bible looked like a potato! Gandalf's nose was three feet long!My mother says I used to watch it when it was on TV sometimes, when I was very young. Fortunatly, I have no recollection of that, and so when I read the Hobbit I had no déjà vu. Maybe that's another indication of how bad it was, that it didn't resemble the story enough to resurface in my mind at all.

gollum*elf*pup

10-15-2002, 05:06 PM

Yeah, it was horrible, wasn't it. I watched it out of curiosity and I thought it was hilarious! I find the stupidest things funny, but it was so bad...that I thought it was funny!

Durelin

10-15-2002, 05:29 PM

Yeah! The first one by Ralph Bashki I like a lot, he did a good job on it considering technology and stuff back then. You can't go and compare the cartoon and the live action movie. Now the Return of the King by this other person makes me sick, but if you're talking about the first one-yeah! --------------- "We're the Knights of the Round Table, we dance wherever able...." - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Dwalin

10-15-2002, 05:37 PM

The cartoon is so bad...it's funny! My sister and I watch it all the time when we need a good chuckle. I especially love the "fearsome" Nazgul.

Childlike Empress

10-15-2002, 10:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> and I think it would only have been good if I was tripping on acid, or at least stoned <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ever consider that perhaps the animators were?

Thengise Greenleaf of Mirkwood

10-15-2002, 10:52 PM

LOL! All of your comments are funny! The first time I saw the cartoons I was at about 7. At the moment I thought that movie was strange without a doubt. It was kinda creepy, that it scared me! But hey I was only 7.

TealDude3

10-17-2002, 02:31 PM

Compaired to the horror I went throught, the cartoon disurves an Academy Award! In 2nd grade, for a field trip went to see a play of The Hobbit. It was the worst piece of [insert objectionable curse words here] I ever had the misfourtune of viewing. It was being performed by children from grades 2-5. As I recall, the costumes were horrable (forgive my spelling errors). Most of the time I couldn't even hear the voices of the performeters. The most humourous part of the play were the people who played Gollum and Gandalf. Gollum was played by an obviously obese child, and by the way that Gandalf was walking(on stilts), he wobbled like he had finally let himself go on the pipeweed. I remember a giant paper mesha dragon playing Smaug and taking 30 minutes at the least to dress the stage between sences, but that's about it(mostly due to the crystal-like ornomint on Gandalf's staff. I swear that thing gave me seziures every time it got into the stage light.)

Taure Leafsilver

10-17-2002, 02:53 PM

I've never seen the animated LOTR, but I did see "The Hobbit" and it gave me nightmares. Like the St. patrick's day claymation cartoon *shudders* because of the animated version, I was afraid of hobbits till I was 11, then I read the the book and that healed the mental wound.

Rose Cotton

10-18-2002, 01:41 PM

I have never seen The Return of the King cartoon but I would like to just to hear to famed Frodo of the nine fingers song.I have seen the Ralph Bashki version and from the moment I saw Sam I had no respect for it. I watch that movie if I want a good laugh.As for the animated Hobbit movie I think it was a great movie. Many of the details are not accurate but besides that it's a delightfull movie and worth at least one viewing.

Elven Mistress

10-18-2002, 01:50 PM

yes! Rose Cotton, i agree with you! I love The Hobbit and LOTR, animated versions! They might not be completely correct, but neither is the new, live action version! What movie IS completely corresponding to the book?! I think the animated version is pretty good...especially for the year it was created in - no cartoons were really wonderful back then!

Lady_Báin

10-18-2002, 06:49 PM

i thought the cartoon to be rather good but weird if not disturbing... until i found out that it was made to actually be a serious movie then the movie was ruined for some reason... or maybe it was pantless Aragorn?O_o

Diamond18

10-18-2002, 10:24 PM

I came across that book again (the one with illustraitions from the cartoon). I couldn't help but flip through it again, and found that the Elves were worse than I'd remembered. They weren't actually green, more like bluish-gray. Their bodies were squat but their legs were long. Their eyes were nothing short of evil and surly. They were balding, and the hair they had was wispy and stringly. Their hangs and feet were amphibian. They were butt-ugly.In short, they were the exact opposite of what Elves should look like. In fact, they were rather close to how I have always pictured Gollum. The only way you could get me to watch this cartoon would be to tie me securely to a chair and pry my eyes open with clothespins.But enough complaining (though I'll probably have nightmares tonight!). I'm posting because I'm wondering...does anyone know of a motivation for depicting the Elves this way? I mean, did the animators ever explain why the Elves were so unlike "real" Elves? Or were they, as others have suggested, just high?

the real findorfin

10-19-2002, 11:38 AM

I got as a christmas present last year (oh God) and watched it with the person who bought it! Guess who.....my girlfriend. Sheer hell!!When I saw Sam I just lost it and kept cursin all the way through. The tacky graphics were laughable with the half cartoon/half-reality stuff!Boromir looked like something out of Dungeons and Dragons, and my mind has blanked out the elves and ringwraiths completely so they must have been bad!

Elven Mistress

10-20-2002, 07:29 AM

I know the truth - that Elves aren't "bad", but there are a lot of people who, after reading JUST The Hobbit, think Elves (especially in Mirkwood) are evil. The illistrators of the cartoon might have thought the same...i mean, they imprisoned dwarves... I personally like the movie <shrugs> i know they can do a better job, but this one will suit me...i think it's rather funny...

greyhavener

10-25-2002, 11:22 PM

I thought the Ralph Bashki cartoon was pretty good considering when it was made. It had some problems, but it wasn't terrible. My kids liked it but thought the animation was sort of dated. I think my 8-year old rented this other one. He enjoyed it. Even a bad version of LOTR is better than much of the thin, unoriginal tales being served up as entertainment.

dufraine

10-30-2002, 10:51 PM

oh dear, i had forgotten about that "Frodo of the nine fingers" song. I had forced that memory into a dark corner of my mind. This is horrible.

The Mushroom

03-06-2004, 02:58 PM

The animated Hobbit has a special place in my heart :) . I'm serious! It was what first introduced me to Tolkien (don't laugh!). Watching it again now I find it quite hilarious and stupid but it still brings back some happy memories. The songs are so funny! I especially like "The Hobbit's Ballad (the greatest adventure)" and the dwarves song. Hehehe! :D The wood elves are seriously hideous though, and Gandalfs nose is so long I just want to snip the end off.
I know I watched the Return of the King movie when I was little but I only remember bits and pieces. I remember the "Frodo of Nine Fingers" song. Yuck. I also remember that I thought Frodo was really scary, and I never wanted to read the books after that. Poor, impressionable me. :)

mark12_30

03-06-2004, 09:40 PM

Personally I can't somach Bakshi but I like the Rankin-Bass.

I like the songs (Really, I'm serious. ) Not so much "Frodo of the Nine Fingers"... but I do like "It's so easy not to try" and "Roads go ever ever on", and out of the Hobbit I like the several of the songs. I think the Hobbit version of "Tra la la lally" is pretty good. And I even like "The greatest adventure is what lies ahead."

Maybe I'm influenced by the review at Hollywood Jesus (http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/lord_of_the_rings_feature_05.htm) but I think the R/B cartoons were pretty alright. Not great, but pretty not-bad.

Bakshi... (shudder) No.

kboleen

03-07-2004, 01:40 AM

The cartoons are not that bad, especially for the time and era they were created in. I especially enjoy The Hobbit. It retains a folkish innocent quality the book captures. Bilbo was very well done and his match of wits with Smaugh is classic. I also enjoy the music of the Hobbit which plays an important part in the books and was hardly touched upon by PJ (what there was in the movies was probably done upon Viggo's insistence). Though I do dislike the irritating "Minstrel" in the cartoon "Return of the King." BTW, I saw the cartoon LOTR in the theaters and ROTK's original TV broadcast.

Kransha

03-07-2004, 11:59 AM

You want my opinion of the cartoon? Well, you asked for it...

Important Stuff Left Out:
1 - The Ring inscription...that's....very...very...important.
2 - THEY NEVER SAY THE RING CAN BE DESTROYED IN MT. DOOM!
3 - The S in Saruman. Who on Arda is Aruman?

Characters Mangled:
1 - Boromir and Sauron were Knights Who Say Ni!
3 - Elrond...was not...an elf...
4 - Saruman 'Aruman' had the voice of a frog
5 - Treebeard looked like a monkey...and he never once said HOOM!
6 - Aragorn had the voice of a gecko.

Additions of EVIL:
1 - The Battle of the Hornburg was apparently made by Sam Peckinpah.
2 - Oh, don't get me started on the music...incidental my eye!
3 - 4 painful words: Milking the Giant Cow
4 - Also, Isildur was turned into a backstabber!
3 - Utter lack of any emotion.

Cartoonstuffs:
Ok, another crucial thing that made me hate this was the constant use of real-footage plastered evilly over cartoon. Like in Bree, cartoon hobbits sitting in a room with stencil realistic full-grown men in bad costumes. Also, half the time, important characters are made 8 times brighter so they'll be seen. Namely all elves have brightness-defect, as does Gandalf, and Theoden once or twice for 'effect.'

I could say more, but I won't.

On the bright side, Gollum and the Ringwaiths weren't at all bad.
If the cartoon inspired you to read the books, good. I'm glad for you. Just because I despise the thing doesn't mean it's all bad.

A poisonous toast to Ralph Bakshi!

P.S. I did like the Rankin-Bass Hobbit. That actually worked very well, except for Gandalf's super-eyebrows and the bloated goblins of Gundabad. Otherwise, I did like that one.

Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1

03-07-2004, 12:03 PM

My uncle thinks it was very good. I'm being serious...*shudders*

Why the heck was Sam made so ugly? They didn't have to try THAT hard to distinguish the hobbits...I mean, I know they're plain and all that, but he was just scary!

As for Aragorn...or maybe it was pantless Aragorn? Do you know how much of a shock that gave me? I mean, I know he was trouserless, but pantless too would give me nightmares, especially with the length of (or rather, lack of) tunic...but then I realised you're American...:p

I never watched long enough to see them out of the Shire, I really couldn't stomach it in doses of more than about 10 minutes. Then I just gave up. And I can't remember those songs you are all talking about...perhaps that's for the best though...;)

elfearz1

03-07-2004, 01:11 PM

I saw the cartoon version of The Hobbit a while after Fotr came out, I rented it. Frankly, I wasn't impressed. I thought that didn't explain enough and I thought the Elves were ugly.

Essex

03-08-2004, 11:36 AM

What a load of moaners!

I think the Bakshi version was very well made, and dealt with the first book and a half in under 2 hours very well indeed.

At least he mentions the 17 year gap!

Jackson himself must have liked the film as he copied a number of things from it, including the shot of the ring bouncing down the rocks in Moria and the shot of Proudfoot sitting at the party with his legs on a chair. And, of course, a direct copy of the Nazgul in the hobbits' bedroom in Bree.

The ATMOSPHERE of the movie was great. This, to me, is an essential part of an adaptation. An example is the scene with Theoden and Aragorn before they ride out to face the orcs. The look on their faces when they realise they have met their doom is marvellous.

re cartoon Sam. I always saw Sam as a bit slow witted and backwards when I first read the books, and this is what makes him an even greater hero when you see him rise above this and become 'one of the greats' as Gandalf puts it. I believe the cartoon Sam is nearer to the book Sam than Sean Astin's. (though not exactly right either). And, no, I'm not dissing Mr Astin, I think his acting and portrayal in the films was excellent, just not quite 'my' Sam.

The music was good, especially the theme tune and the lament for Gandalf.

The only thing I had against it was working out who was Merry and who was Pippin!

And at least we had the immortal line "Fly, fly the enemy is upon us!"

And why on Earth take the mickey out of Aragorn's voice? That was John Hurt for pete's sake! A classic english actor, who could act most people 'off the stage'

The Gollum character was superbly thought out. Again, to me, I think this version of Gollum is nearer (character wise) to the book that Jackson's. And his voice was excellent too.

Give poor Bakshi a break. A job well done. I think I'll pop the dvd on tonight for another view. Thanks!

The Saucepan Man

03-08-2004, 11:45 AM

I'm with Essex on this one. I saw the Bakshi cartoon in the cinema when it first came out and have very fond memories of it. Looking back, Red Indian Aragorn, Viking Boromir, Farmer Gimli and Clarence the cross-eyed Legolas are rather amusing. But, to my mind, Essex makes some strong points in its favour.

It's also worth bearing in mind that it was made in the late 1970s, when CGI technology was virtually unheard of. Film effects and animation techniques have moved on a long way since then. :rolleyes: :cool:

Imladris

03-08-2004, 09:54 PM

Saucepan Man, you stole the words right out of my mouth. Curses, foiled again! Ahem.

I personally have never seen LotR, but I have seen The Hobbit, which freaked me out to put it bluntly. But, my main point is that I would never have read LotR if it hadn't been for that animated hobbit which was fairly good in my humble opinion. So what if Gollum looked like a frog. I don't believe Tolkien really described him that clearly in The Hobbit. As for the elves, I think they were green to get that glow look that is mentioned in FotR somewhere...they weren't that bad, really...

And yes, if it hadn't been for the horrid animations, then Jackson wouldn't have made the films, which some may view as a good thing, but I think the majority would mourn the loss.

Kidd2323

03-09-2004, 01:53 PM

I vaguely remember my uncle taking me to see the LotR cartoon in London when I was 7 (many many many years ago) years old and visiting from the States for his wedding, and I vividly recall many bad dreams due to the Ringwraiths on horses scene which seemed like animation drawn over an live action shot. It scared the daylights out of me for years and I wasn't sure where it came from, and then when I finally read The Hobbit and LotR , it dawned on me where my nightmares came from...those stupid Nazgul scene from the cartoon.
Ugh! I'm so glad I got over my frights and enjoy the books now despite my bad experience with the cartoon.
By the way, I thought The Hobbit cartoon wasn't that bad.

Numenorean

03-10-2004, 06:36 AM

I remember seeing Bakshis LoTR on sunday afternoon TV as a kid, and I was well impressed, puzzled and disturbed, but its biggest effect was to leave me wanting more info and visuals of Middle Earth.
So I read LoTR, which was brilliant, but for years I had an unchangeable set of mental images of all of the Bakshi-style Fellowship, which was bad, especially for those cheeky wee basin haircutted Hobbits with their quirky little hand movements and japery.
All-in-all though its a top introduction to JRRTs work for kids, particuarly lazy ones, and Essex I totally agree with you about 'the ATMOSPHERE of the movie being great' it had/has some genuinely fine moments - eg. Frodo valiantly resisting the Wraiths at Weathertop and the Ford of Bruinen, two moments where PJs Frodo could've been so much better and truer to the Book, had he copied Bakshis version.

The Saucepan Man

03-10-2004, 07:31 AM

the Ringwraiths on horses scene ... seemed like animation drawn over an live action shot

Indeed, that's exactly what it was. It was a technique used in all the horseriding and battle scenes in the Bakshi film. And it was "state of the art" at the time, too! :eek: :D

peonydeepdelver

03-10-2004, 02:10 PM

Hm, I actually liked The Hobbit! It's one of my favorite cartoon movies. :D And I liked the songs in it, though some of you say otherwise.

Haven't seen the RotK cartoon, but I intend to soon.

No comment on LotR... ;)

Kidd2323

03-10-2004, 02:36 PM

I didn't think there was a RotK cartoon...I thought the whole thing ended at Helm's Deep! (What a jip!)

Is there an RotK cartoon?

Morima

03-10-2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Tigerlily Gamgee
Watching the cartoon, for me, is like having twelve gallons of boiling molasses poured in my bed as I sleep.

LOL LOL

God I so agree.
*** did they do with Saruman anyway??
(yes, i tend to rant about saruman. deal with it.)

He had a red dress!
He had huge hair!
He had a crow voice!
And HE was the one doing the fireworks!
On top of that, they called him ARUMAN!

LOL LOL :D
(all i can do is laugh.
until i cry.)

Essex

03-11-2004, 03:56 AM

Oh my God!! They left out the S in Saruman!!!!!!!

How dare they! And I thought Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul, and Faramir dragging the hobbits to Osgilliath in the live action movie was bad!!!! How could I be so stupid?????!!!!!!

Calling Saurman 'aruman is a grevious sin I cannot abide. I will throw my copy of the cartoon DVD into a dustbin and set fire to it.

I have never been so outraged in my life!!!!!!!!!!!

Feanor of the Peredhil

03-11-2004, 02:57 PM

Hahaha... the other movies... Classic. I've never seen The Hobbit, though since Keeper of Dol Goldur advises against it, I may to spite him.

The Return of the King is simply brilliant. I love it. My boyfriend and I occasionally start singing the songs for pure enjoyment (anybody for a rousing chorus of "Where there's a whip, there's a way [Hey hey!]!"?). And who said that the minstrel is annoying? I found the beginning rather entertaining (Bilbo: I'm so old I don't remember anything. Gandalf: Thank God we brought a minstrel from Gondor to save the day!).

I can't say I've ever made it all the way through Lord of the Rings, though. I may have, and simply [thank god] have forgotten it. I get about to the "17 years passed in the Shire" (you know, the part where 17 years worth of seasons flash in the space of about 15 seconds?) and I turn it off. Although I do vividly remember Boromir of the Horned Helm.

All in all, as horrible as these films are, I highly recommend them to everyone. Its truly a life altering experience to see Sam and have the immediate reaction "Dear God what is that thing?". But if you see them and tell someone else to, expect to be smacked at least once.

Fea

Ophelia

03-16-2004, 03:05 PM

Whooo ! I haven`t got the chance to see the cartoon , but from all your most definetly one-wayed thoughts of it , I must admit : I do not regret the fact . Though maybe a little for I can`t post a normal post with a dramaticly alike-to-the-other-ones agreement of the uselessness of this cartoon and , as far as I get it , I have missed quite a laugh :rolleyes: :p
Oah and do pleace be thankful that J.R.R.Tolkien , in his last will , forbided Disney to make LotR a cartoon :smokin:

O[p]helia

Essex

03-16-2004, 06:46 PM

I watched the film again the other day.

In at least one way, the cartoon is better than the action movies inasmuch as it is FAR more faithful to the books than Jackson's.

Don't get me wrong, Jackson's films overall are far superior, but stop dissing the cartoon. It is VERY FAITHFUL to the book (with just a few digressions), but it obviously leaves a fair bit out (to fit in 1.5 books in 1 film).

I started writing a list of where it is more faithful, but I ran out of room on my piece of A4 so gave up! Little things like the attack of the Black Riders taking place in the dell below weathertop, not on the 'summit' of weathertop as was shown in the action film, and Frodo singing the drinking song and slipping in the common room as is in the book, and not because action movie Pippin (surprise, surprise, make him the village idiot) gives the game away.

Oh, and we see Gandalf actually handling the Ring as should be the case. Also, I love the seen (in the book and cartoon) where Gandalf snatches the envelope containing the ring from Bilbo's grasp.

Loads more, but I think you get my point.

Try not to be snobbish and view the film for what it is. A faithful adaptation of Lord of the Rings as a CARTOON.

OH, and another thing. At least the cartoon shows Merry and Pippin's 'consipiracy unmasked', and gives their reason for going with Sam and Frodo. This is key to their characters and the Hobbits' friendship throughout the whole book. In the action movie we have a MASSIVE coincedence (I'd hate to know what the odds are) of the two of them running smack bang into Frodo in the middle of a field in the middle of the Shire. One in a million perhaps? At least the cartoon faithfully shows the real reason for Merry and Pippin being there.

Elianna

03-17-2004, 09:28 AM

I actually enjoy the Rankin-Bass movies. Of course they don't do everything right, such as Beorn (who is as present as Tom Bombadil), and the elves (I wonder how many people would Lego if he looked like that!:D, and don't you just love Elrond's beard and halo!), but I really like the songs. I'll often burst into a verse of "Frodo of the Nine Fingers", or "Tra la la lally", or "When there's a whip, there's a way". They keep some of the best lines, like Smaug's boasting and Éowyn's speech to the Witch-king (well, they don't keep all of it, but it's far closer than Peter got!:mad: )
Yes, the minstrel gets annoying eventually, and Denethor's madness is strangely incorporated, and Faramir is seen a grand total of 3 times, and the Nazgul are poorly done, and mispronounce several Elvish names, but hey, they also have the Elessar, and Elladan and Elrohir (their backs at least when Aragorn's planning the march to the Morannon), and the correct finger being lost, and the Watchers, and the Red Arrow.

The Bakshi version on the other hand………the men eventently hadn't invented pants yet (yes Elentarí_O_Most_Mighty_1, that's trousers to everyone in the world besides Americans), and they butcher Elf names even worse, and Lego looks like a pig, Boromir, a viking, and Elrond, just normal , like a dad you would see at some school function, and their treatment of Éowyn: "Hey look, it's Éowyn…back to the real story.", and the lament of Gandalf, as I remember it was far too happy.
This movie actually lead to some rather embarassing misconceptions:
I still hadn't read the books yet. I didn't know it was m-E-R-r-y, so him looking like a girl didn't help matters. And as I watched Cate Blanchette and Elijah Wood at the Mirror of Galadriel, at Galadriel's line "He will try to take the Ring." I was wondering, "Okay, that Boromir guy looks like he would want the Ring, but it was the guy with the Viking hat in the cartoon, and wasn't that Gimli?"
But on the brighter side, almost everything said in that movie is straight from the book, and said when it was said in the book (like "If by my life or death I can protect you, I will." at Bree!:rolleyes:). And as said before, they actually have the 17 yr. gap (altough done poorly), and Frodo talking to the Ringwraiths at Bruinen (a part I very much enjoy in the books), and Aragorn having the Sword that was Broken. And I completely agree with Essex about the 'conspiracy unmasked' part.

And of course the brightest part of the cartoons: Neither has any referance to Arwen! (which I think is the better extreme.) j/k.

Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1

03-17-2004, 11:47 AM

To be honest, I think people's perceptions of the cartoon depends on things such as their age, what level of CGI and so on they have been exposed to, whether they had seen PJ's ones first, attention span...and so on. I mean, that is the first time I had seen a cartoon from the 1970s and I've seen much better...and my attention span is not all it should be really. I saw FOTR first...I might have seen TTT as well actually, I can't remember. And all those airy fairy special effects got to me because they contrasted so greatly with the potatoe-ness of the Hobbits...but Essex is right, it is more faithful than PJ's. It's just that I seem unable to appreciate it...(I never got past the Hobbits leaving the Shire, as I recall). Anyway, I don't like animated stuff as a rule...I couldn't stand Fantasia for a start...(that would be because it both bored me and terrified me...interesting combination, no?)

Corin

04-28-2004, 04:46 PM

EEK!!! Those are so stupid it's hard to believe! The Balrog looks like a browny with a lions head, Aragorn wears a miniskirt, Gimli wears a coffee bean sack on his head, The orcs look so stupid, Gandalf, Sauraman (who they call Auraman), and all the Nazgul gymp and are very scary, Gandalf is always pointing at people, and above all SAM IS A BLOODY IDIOT!!! I Hate that movie.

The Only Real Estel

04-28-2004, 05:42 PM

Shall we rant about the new movies, then?

Legolas wears tights, Aragorn talks through his nose sometimes, Arwen breathes her words, Elrond always looks constipated, Frodo's always being stupid with the Ring, Barliman is such a dork, the men in Bree are obviously on stilts, I thought Orcs catipulted heads over the walls of Minas Tirith, not fake heads! They call Sauron 'SOUR-on', the Orcs were wearing masks, Farmer Maggot only had one dog, there were practically no actual houses in the Shire, Bill Ferny didn't have a Southern friend, Saruman & Gandalf pronounce Caradhas differently...

Really it's pointless isn't it? I really don't even care about most (or all) of the things I just listed, personally. I no that under 'The Movies' sign, it says that you can even discuss the animated ones, but if you want to discuss them, lets try to do so slightly more intelligently, shall we? :rolleyes:

p.s. understand i'm really not knocking you (even though it might sound like it), i'm just demonstrating what your post sounded like (slightly exaggerated). more of a knock on your post than anything, i suppose :/.

Lord of Angmar

04-28-2004, 06:14 PM

Yet another sterling topic, Corin. I hope you get plenty of replies from people who are just as murderously angry about a cartoon from the 1970s as you are.

Elianna

04-28-2004, 06:15 PM

Uh, The Only Real Estel , check to pronounciation guide in Sil, you're supposed to pronouce Sauron "Sour-on."

Laitoste

04-28-2004, 08:37 PM

They WERE stupid, but look on the bright side: they're something to watch to make you laugh, hysterically if you're anything like me. And another good thing-almost no one knows about them. Now, anything else you'd like to discuss. This topic really is not one to stimulate much discussion...no offence.

Corin

04-28-2004, 08:44 PM

Yeah they did give me a good laugh.

Child of the 7th Age

04-29-2004, 07:57 AM

Bakshi's movie was seriously flawed in a dozen different ways: the abrupt ending, the strange characterizations of the Hobbits including presenting Sam as a doofus, Boromir as a "Viking", the lack of funds which meant that the rotoscope animation (or whatever it's called!) of the first hour of the movie was not too bad but went steadily downhill from there.

I vaguely remember when I first heard this movie was going to be made. Many fans had high hopes. The most encouraging thing was the man they chose to write the script: Peter S. Beagle. He was an accomplished fantasy writer and, in fact, wrote the intro to one of the editions of LotR. What came out was definitely not what we expected. The funniest thing was this: nowhere in the pre-film advertising did anyone mention that this film only covered half of the book. Everyone went to the movie premier thinking that they would be seeing the entire Lord of the Rings, and came out scratching their heads because Bakshi cut off the action after Helm's Deep. Of course, the film was not a box office success and Bakshi never made his sequel.

There were things in the movie I did like: Bakshi's portrayal of Galadriel (I honestly liked it better than PJ's!) and the quality of the animation for the first hour. But overall the movie did not do a good job. However, I would not say I "hated" it. "Disappointed" would be a more accurate term.

It's funny -- this film came out in 1978, and so did Tolkien's Letters about the same time. I remember reading the part in the Letters where Tolkien said he didn't think his book could ever be successfully adapted into a film. After seeing Bakshi, I started to wonder if JRRT was right!

As flawed as Bakshi's film was, it was stellar when compared with the made for TV adaption of the Return of the King. That was the movie I most disliked. This was a Rankin-Bass production. Rankin-Bass had also come out with a Hobbit movie for children. The Hobbit was, in my opinion, a decent movie and had touches of charm. Moreover, more than all the other Tolkien adaptations (including PJ), the Hobbit was very faithful to the storyline.

RotK turned out, however, to be exceedingly bad -- far worse than the Hobbit or Bakshi's film. They absolutely killed the story, sticking in all kinds of weird things and "dumbing down" the plot. There are a few lovely landscapes depicted in the film, but other than this it is really bad!

But let's just be glad for these earlier movies. Tolkien sold the movie rights to LotR only about a year after the book was finished. If he didn't do that, I highly doubt that Christopher Tolkien and the Estate would have been willing to see any movie made. That could have effectively squashed PJ's project. There's all kind of interesting stuff about the rights to these early movies -- the ones that got made as well as the ones that didn't. (The latter include the Beatles' adaptation, the first one by Ackerman that Tolkien discusses in his Letters, and the one by John Boorman.)

I would like to have seen Boorman do something with LotR. His movie Excalibur was definitely interesting, and gives us an idea how he would have approached LotR. I read somewhere that Boorman actually talked to JRRT, and Tolkien told him that he preferred to see his book made into a live action film, rather than an animated one. However, once Bakshi's adaptation came out, Boorman dropped the project.

For an interesting discussion of these early film adaptations, see this link: here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20020111x)

Essex

04-29-2004, 08:06 AM

Corin, we had this discussion in another thread a few weeks back. I can't remember what it was but will try to find it.

just suffice to say, the ralph bashki version of lord of the rings is far closer to the books than jackson's version is.

for what it was, it was a good introduction to me of tolkien's work when I was a kid, and drove me to read the books, as is jackson's version for the children of THIS generation.

so don't knock it too much. remember it's just a cartoon, mainly aimed at children.

(added)

Corin, by the wonders of modern science, the post I referred to is now above this one on the thread listing.

Essex

04-29-2004, 08:08 AM

just posting a note so Corin can see this thread at the top of the list.

The Saucepan Man

04-29-2004, 11:24 AM

Thank you, Essex for pointing out that this topic has been covered in a recent thread. :) I have merged the two to avoid too much duplication.

There is also an earlier thread comparing the cartoon with the Jackson films here:

Cartoon vs. Movie (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=9851)

I said my piece in the thread linked to above. But I will reiterate one point. The Bakshi cartoon was made over 20 years ago, when today's technical wizardry was simply not available. It may seem laughable now but it was all that we had back then. Certainly, when I saw it at the cinema aged 12 (when it was first released), I enjoyed it and I still have fond memories of it. Even if, looking back, I do find certain aspects of it strange and amusing now. :D

Pippinn

04-29-2004, 12:57 PM

I, personally, do not like the cartoons. They are horrible things, but they are something to pull out and laugh at. Plus, you can annoy people with the songs.
I don't care what is said; they make Sam a bumbling fool in the cartoons, and on top of that, he looks like a woman. They make Merry a red-head, and they start saying 'God' in ROTK. -sigh- They didn't even get Gollum right; he looked like a child's plush toy.
But they were more faithful to the story line than PJ's.

The Only Real Estel

04-29-2004, 06:06 PM

Yeah they did give me a good laugh.

Reall? It sounded more like you were mad about them in your first post. Maybe I need to get better at judging people's tones... :confused:.

Kitanna

05-04-2004, 07:42 PM

Ok I've seen the Hobbit and I think it's good for little kids. My mom had read us the Hobbit when I was little and then I saw the movie and as a six year old I thought it was great. And then there's the LOTR cartoon. Half animation/half live action. The bain of my exsistence.
My dad made me watch it when I was four, five, six something like that and it scared the crap out of me. I scare pretty easily and I cover my eyes in PG-13 war movies, it's kinda sad, but it happens. Anyways so this cartoon scared me and I refused to have anything to do with LOTR unless it was the Hobbit.
So right before the FOTR came into theaters (my parents were forcing me to go) I watched it again and laughed 'til I cried. Horribly stupid cartoon I spent ten years being scared of.
So what my point is is that the cartoons are horrible and very stupid, but they keep the main idea to the books. They're not the best, but I think if you're a little kid watching them won't totally ruin your views of LOTR books.

Vuelve

05-26-2004, 06:44 PM

I first saw the LotR cartoons a couple days ago on t.v.,........O My!! :eek:

That was very interesting to say the least, although I missed the Hobbit and ROTK comes on next weekend I think.It was very scary.

3 - The S in Saruman. Who on Arda is Aruman?
I was wondering about that too. At first I thought maybe I had just heard it wrong,but unfortunately I Didn't.And his whole red-robe-thing he had going on just didn't work for me.They could've at least drawn him wearing a tye-dye robe.That would have been closer to the book than that.

or maybe it was pantless Aragorn? Okay this scared me very, VERY much.I thought for a minute that they were tan tights. :(

Looking back, Red Indian Aragorn, Viking Boromir, Farmer Gimli and Clarence the cross-eyed Legolas are rather amusing
So you mean I wasn't the only one who thought Aragorn looked like an Indian?

I was kind of excited when it got to the part where Frodo got stabbed and they were heading to Rivendell, I thought I was finally going to see someones inteurpetation of Glorfindel.I was wrong.I was like alright I finally get to see Glor............Legolas??What??This isn't supposed to happen.This wasn't in the book.Apparently it was in the script though.
I also thought Gollum and Sam were both very tragic. Gollum's voice drove me nuts the whole time, and I never pictured Sam as a Half-Wit.
Treebeard was rather tragic too.That was bad.

I feel much relieved after letting that out.Over all I thought the film was very entertaining though.I plan on buying it sometime.

Feels good to post on the Downs after such a long leave,
Vuelve

Gorwingel

05-26-2004, 11:34 PM

Gosh, I finally saw this version on Cartoon Network last Monday, and all I have to say is thank gosh I didn't have to waste my money to rent it!

It was horrible, just plain dreadful, and awful :eek: (ok, maybe it wasn't that bad, but I am just letting my emotions spill out)

Now I had heard about it being bad, and the beginning started out okay (I thought Hobbiton, and Frodo looked fine), but once they introduced Sam (aka the Hunchback of Notre Dame in my opinion) I knew it wasn't going to be good. The main thing about this version (as many others have said) is the way the characters are shown on screen. I thought Aragorn looked like a mix between Robin Hood, and Conan the Barbarian (And I kept thinking that he needed a shirt), when I first saw Boromir I said "who's the Viking" (I didn't know that it was Boromir at the time), and then Legolas looked like the Prince from Swan Lake. I also thought that the Film's Elrond was terrible too, and Isengard... All I can say is "ugh".

I actually gave up on the film halfway through, but it was quite funny at times (the orcs! and Ringwraiths).

Kitanna

05-27-2004, 06:00 AM

The funny thing is the guy who played Legolas's voice was the same guy who was C-3PO in Star Wars, oh the work he's found since then. When I watched it with my friends last summer we started referring to Aragorn as Chief Joseph. Then we muted it and put in our own voice overs. It was really quite amusing.
The funniest thing is my dad owns that cartoon.

Lathriel

05-28-2004, 09:31 AM

I kinda liked the hobbit because I thought it was cute.

As for the Bhakshi version I remembered that the opening was okay but then it went rapidly downhill. I don't remember Sam though because everyone mentions it I can feel the image returning. *Shudder*

As for the orcs, they seemed very heavy considering the food they got couldn't make them that fat!

I remember watching the part where they cross the ford and the elf was riding towards them and i thought "Yeah Glorfindel!" I Couldn't have been more wrong, it was Legolas, what???? At least this prpaired me for PJ's version when it was Arwen who came.

So I do not want to watch it again, EVER!!!!

Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1

05-28-2004, 11:47 AM

they make Sam a bumbling fool in the cartoons, and on top of that, he looks like a woman Pardon?! What an insult!!! :mad:

Anyway...I am proud to say that I finally managed to get all the way through watching the cartoon!!! *Curtseys*
Mind you, it was in German...my German teacher gives me LOTR stuff to bribe me to actually do German work in lessons- she's given me about 3 posters, a German LOTR sticker book thing and lent me the video of the cartoon in German. Couldn't understand much though- about one word in three actually... :rolleyes: ...but I think the added novelty of not being able to understand a word was what managed to pull me through. So there you have it. I couldn't stand it in English, but I could cope with it in German...

I quite liked Galadriel as well...but I liked the way she changed in PJ's film more- might not have been too realistic, but then, ME is an imaginary place- and it worked better dramatically, IMO.

Oh, and it's nice to be back- I'm on study leave! Wahay! Downside- I had an English Literature exam today- ouch. My arm still aches!

Arathiriel

05-29-2004, 10:53 PM

The cartoon is so bad that if anyone thinks PJ messed up LOTR then they need to watch the cartoon version as it is HORRID!!!

Enorëiel

05-31-2004, 07:43 PM

I was flipping through the tv channels the other day and came upon it. I started laughing hysterically and sat down to watch it. Needless to say I was laughing a lot. The first time I saw Aragorn I had to do a double take - it looked like he wasn't wearing clothes! IT was only then that I noticed he had on a REALLY short tunic - type cloth. Legolas reminded me of a girl and Gimli was almost as tall as Aragorn and Legolas (wasn't he supposed to be short...). I only caught the last hour but that was enough. I'd really like to finish it just so I could have some more laughs. It really made me angry when they showed Sam. I nearly screamed - Sam is not a bumbling idiot people! What the heck!

senser81

06-01-2004, 12:21 PM

Jackson himself must have liked the film as he copied a number of things from it, including the shot of the ring bouncing down the rocks in Moria and the shot of Proudfoot sitting at the party with his legs on a chair. And, of course, a direct copy of the Nazgul in the hobbits' bedroom in Bree.

I think this point needs further research. I watched the beginning of the cartoon on TCN recently, and I noticed this too. It seemed that a lot of shot sequences from the cartoon were stolen/used by Jackson in the movie. It would be interesting to find out Jackson's thoughts on the cartoon, because it is too big of a coincidence for him not to have seen the cartoon.

And the person that said "The Battle of the Hornburg was apparently made by Sam Peckinpah" is right on! :D

Ainaserkewen

06-01-2004, 01:28 PM

All I have to say is that I didn't know that orcs were such good singers.

Oh and...
Gosh, I finally saw this version on Cartoon Network last Monday, and all I have to say is thank gosh I didn't have to waste my money to rent it!
I got mine from the library. Apparently you can get almost any movie from there FREE!

PaleStar

06-27-2004, 05:54 PM

Oh good grief...anyone who hasn't seen the cartoons are in for a laugh.
While Rankin/Bass didn't do well with either the Hobbit or Return of the King, they still did better than Bakishi.
After all, Sam was turned into a blithering idiot. I believe an icon I saw recently sums it up; "Potato+Hunchback of notre dome= Bakishi Sam"
Oh, the 'Frodo Of The Nine Fingers'...*growls* I do not like it, not at all. Still, sometimes I find myself singing it for a laugh; the original sounds like the guy singing it is a goat.
Let's not forget Bakishi's Gandalf chasing Frodo across the room with his finger.

Essex

06-28-2004, 03:50 AM

frodo of the nine fingers song was not in bashkie's LOTR. It was, I believe, in Rankin/Bass Return of the King.

I believe the REAL Sam is a mixture of the 'bumbling idiot' as you call him in bashki's version, and the TOO clever/wise Peter Jackson version we get.

Sam does start the books as a sort of, how can I put it, not too bright sort of character. The point of this is that he grows into a more 'greater' character as the books progress. I don't think Jackson's version shows this change quite enough.

PaleStar

06-28-2004, 05:35 PM

Is that really how you feel, Essex? Granted, Jackson's Sam is not exactly as described, but that's closer than you'll find in any of the cartoons.
Of course the 'Nine Fingers' song is in the R/B version...everyone sings in that...

The Only Real Estel

06-28-2004, 08:48 PM

Sam does start the books as a sort of, how can I put it, not too bright sort of character. The point of this is that he grows into a more 'greater' character as the books progress. I don't think Jackson's version shows this change quite enough.

I think we got Sam's 'not so brightness' in the movie from the frightened nonsense he railed off when Gandalf pulled him in through the movie, & we got some of his simple, inexpierenced character from the 'farthest outside the Shire' bit. I thought PJ's Sam was pretty much right-on, a little brighter than the books perhaps, but there really was more about Book Sam than there seemed to be at first glance also...but I think I'm a little of topic :D.

Aredhel

07-07-2004, 08:21 PM

You've got it all right. I agree with you 100% on everything that you said about the movie as well as the cartoons.

My favorite thing about Bakshi's work was the voice of Aragorn, played by (the british) John Hurt. His growling low voice was so wonderful, plus- his accent is genuine! I am a fan of Sir Robert Stephens, who did the voice of Aragorn in the BBC radio plays. Once again, it is his low, warbling, noble-sounding voice and accent that made the character one of my favorites. At least in the Bakshi version, Aragorn's lines are not changed so significantly as to detract from the character's good and noble heart.
One can see that Bakshi's Aragorn might even have been modeled on Sir Stephen's face - perhaps he was whom Bakshi wanted originally. But that's okay.
You know, I wasn't phased by the shortness of Aragorn's tunic, either. I did, however, wonder how he kept the bugs from sneaking up his crotch! :eek:

I do believe that Jackson's films would not be nearly so good without Bakshi's contribution to the visualization of Middle Earth. Thank goodness for his work, else I probably would not have liked the film one bit. In this, Bakshi won....even though his animated film was a bit of a dud. Thanks, Bakshi! :)

The Only Real Estel

07-08-2004, 08:38 PM

You've got it all right. I agree with you 100% on everything that you said about the movie as well as the cartoons.

a perfect 3-for-3? That's pretty rare for me ;)

Encaitare

07-29-2004, 09:33 PM

I watched the LotR cartoon just out of curiosity and thought it to be terrible but entertaining (and this from a chick who has "Plan 9 from Outer Space", dubbed the worst movie ever made, on DVD, so perhaps my opinion is not valid ;) )

But yes, Pantless Aragorn, Viking Boromir, and "Aruman" were all just too much to handle. BTW, they called him "Aruman" because Bakshi thought Sauron and Saruman sounded too much alike and it would confuse people.

InklingElf

07-29-2004, 09:53 PM

Bungo Baggins

07-30-2004, 02:45 PM

I liked the cartoon as a kid, but I can only laugh when I watch it now, especially their portrayal of Sam. I do have to ay though, that were it not for the cartoon, I would have never been interested in Tolkien's world.

Morsul the Dark

07-30-2004, 07:31 PM

that movie was very very horrible I'm gladI didn't watch it until after I read the trilogy because I would never had read LOTR had I seen it before reading the book

The Only Real Estel

07-30-2004, 07:37 PM

I'm gladI didn't watch it until after I read the trilogy because I would never had read LOTR had I seen it before reading the book

Are you sure about that? If you hadn't read the trilogy first, you'd never have known how far off the cartoon was, so it wouldn't have annoyed you half as much. I haven't actually seen the movie, though (heard plenty, not sure I want to see it, so it could possibly be bad enough to scare people off just by taking a mere glance at it :eek:! Still, I think it's more possible than not that if I were in your place, I'd have gone ahead & read the trilogy anyway ;)...

Morsul the Dark

07-30-2004, 07:43 PM

Well I saw PJ's FOTR first then read the trilogy then saw TTT then watched the cartoon so it was going against both the book and PJ's adaptation so perhaps I should give it some slack but the troll was merely a big football player and Saruman was wearing a red cloak oddly

Morgul Queen

07-31-2004, 04:16 AM

Does anyone else want to MST this?

I've been meaning to do it for nearly 6 months now, just never managed to get 'round to it.

BTW, if some of you are confuddled by the term 'MST' go here. (http://alswaiter.codedaemon.com/LOTR)

Essex

08-02-2004, 02:41 AM

Estel. re your point: If you hadn't read the trilogy first, you'd never have known how far off the cartoon was, so it wouldn't have annoyed you half as much. If the bakshi movie is ONE thing, then it is actually quite faitful to the story line of lotr/tt. It is FAR more faithful an adaptation than PJs versions. I've already gone through my reasons on this on one of the other threads we've had recently on this topic.

I haven't actually seen the movie, though if you get a chance, take a look at it. I personally don't think it's a bad movie as it is at least pretty faithful to the books, and was a good introduction to Tolkien to me, and made me actually read the books, as it did for Bungo Baggins above.

PS Jackson must of liked it as he knicked quite a few 'shots' from this film and used them in his own movie. (1/ ring falling down the rocks in the prolouge, 2/ shot of proudfoot sitting with his feet up at the party 3/ nazgul attack on the hobbits' bedroom in Bree)

gorthaur_cruel

08-02-2004, 06:40 AM

This (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm) is a good review of Bakshi's cartoon.

Reg Pither

08-02-2004, 07:22 AM

Essex, I'm with you on this one!

However ungainly and disappointing the film is as a whole, it does have John Hurt's Aragorn, some very atmospheric sequences and above all, accuracy in its favour. I saw it as a valiant but ultimately doomed first attempt at commiting LotR to film, and all we needed was for the technology to improve enough for all the fantastic races, creatures and places to be portrayed effectively.

This does then lead me slightly off-topic to say that ever since Bakshi (and before, in fact) I'd always assumed that the only real stumbling block to filming the trilogy was the visual realization of Middle Earth. So when the technology finally did catch up and PJ's films brilliantly portrayed Tolkien's world, I was so disappointed, confused and baffled that so much of the story was changed. It was as if PJ had done all the difficult stuff, but then inexplicably altered what didn't need altering. :confused:

Essex

08-02-2004, 07:46 AM

Gorthar, re This is a good review of Bakshi's cartoon. No it's not!

But it IS funny (but at the author's expense, not because he writes anything humourous in itself)

God knows what his review of the jackson movies must be like regarding some of his bones of contention he has with bakshi's e.g. the elves 'glow' - watch out Arwen! or sam hiding in a bush instead of outside the window? - wow, yes, that mistake renders the film useless on it's own!

and the wizards have too much hair!!! oh my god, my dvd copy of the film is going straight in the bin. How could I have been so stupid? :D

Encaitare

08-02-2004, 11:18 AM

If the bakshi movie is ONE thing, then it is actually quite faitful to the story line of lotr/tt. It is FAR more faithful an adaptation than PJs versions. --Essex

Yes, they're much more faithful to the story, but just not as good. Oh well, we can't have everything :(

Zebedee

09-17-2004, 04:42 PM

I hated it.

Encaitare

09-18-2004, 12:35 PM

May I ask why you hated it? Just out of curiosity, as I'm not the biggest fan of them either.

Zebedee

09-18-2004, 12:46 PM

It was a long time ago, but this is what I remember:

1. No one could sit still
2. The animation was horrible (whose idea was it to have actors in the cartoon anyway?)
3. They made Sam look like an idiot.

Avie

09-18-2004, 01:08 PM

I was inspired by reading this very thread yesterday and very nearly choking laughing to pick up a DVD copy of this masterpiece.
It was worth every penny :D :D

the guy who be short

06-17-2005, 03:20 PM

I feel inclined to bump this thread as I watched the Bakshi cartoon two days ago.

It was, honestly, brilliant. For something made in the 70s, additionally so. I cannot describe how much I laughed... it was just magical. Aruman, butterfly-balrog, wavey-hands-and-scary-eyes-Gandalf. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and recommend everybody finds a copy.

narfforc

06-22-2005, 10:54 AM

Bakshi, Bakshi, Bakshi, if only you had read the book, I could imagine his teacher saying. Disastrous, awful, bad adaptation and weak script, those are its good points. Thank God they ran out of money or pulled the plug, can just imagine the Rotoscope version of Shelob.

Kitanna

06-22-2005, 06:55 PM

Though the animation is pretty horrible by today's standards that was like cutting edge in the '70's. Though I'm no fan of the Bakshi cartoons I think he was, for the most part, faithful to the books. Far more than the ROTK and The Hobbit cartoons.

Legolas

06-22-2005, 09:10 PM

"Aruman" was an attempt to help the kids watching keep Sauron and Saruman separate, since their original names sound similar.

The only problem with that is half the actors forget this and still say Saruman a few times.

Eomer of the Rohirrim

04-11-2008, 04:17 PM

Just watched it for a third time. I was very much in the 'so bad it's brilliant' camp before, but I genuinely thought it was better this time. Some bits are right creepy, and there's a lot of book dialogue. Plus, all the atrocities they do commit add a great lot of humour.

Cailín saw it for the first time, and thinks it is abysmal. Give her time, though. ;)

skip spence

04-15-2008, 08:48 AM

Watched Rankin/Bass' The Hobbit cartoon for the first time a few weeks ago and I thought it was wonderful. Seriously, they don't make cartoons like this more. The animations were lovely, and so was the voice acting and the soundtrack. Gollum inexplicably looked like some kind of bulking salamander but he was downright creepy and the actor who did his voice did a marvelous job. Oh, that the elves of Mirkwood looked like gremlins was a hard pill to swallow but that wouldn't have been an issue for most kids, the target audience of the cartoon.

And that scene when Bilbo climbs a tree in Mirkwood and sees all them black butterflies almost brought tears to my eyes, I swear ;)

Just wish I had the chance to see it through the eyes of a child.

ArathornJax

04-27-2008, 12:48 AM

gotten many younger fans to read the books for the first time. When it came out, media was just beginning to come around. Color TV in most homes were only about 10 years or so. Is it imperfect, totally. I saw it and I will tell you why I liked it but didn't like it. I would eat anything up at 12 that was Tolkien, and this was Tolkien. Having said that, I didn't like it because the characters did not resemble how I had visually created them in my mind while reading the book.

I also guess I'm like Tolkien, and no matter where I live, I am always looking for areas in nature that could be a location that fits my image or comes close to my image of a location in Middle Earth.

As a man in his forties, it is much easier to look at something like PJ's movies and realize that these are his adaptations of the book, his images. Mine may not match, and they are probably better (for me), I can still appreciate the entertainment that they offer.

Morthoron

04-27-2008, 02:36 PM

The Bakshi film must be taken in context. For the time it was released, it was state of the art as far as animation. I think a lot of folk are spoiled by modern computer-generated anime to realize the amount of work that went into the preparation of this film.

In comparison to P. Jackson's film, Bakshi is far more faithful to Tolkien, particularly regarding dialogue (for instance, Bakshi retained Frodo's brave rebuff of the Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen, unlike Jackson's silly take of Arwen summoning up power she in no way possessed). Additionally, Aragorn's representation in Bakshi's version as a more grizzled, harder looking character fits more to Tolkien's description than the half-shaven pin-up boy Viggo in Jackson's.

It was a valiant effort bound to fail, given the lack of funding and the technological requirements; however, it is far more compelling than the daft and utterly doltish Rankin-Bass LotR cartoon. Everytime I hear the pseudo-folk wail of 'Frodo of the Nine-fingers', I throw up in my mouth a little.

Sauron the White

04-27-2008, 06:41 PM

Morthoron

04-27-2008, 07:30 PM

Bakshi used a stable of artists who employed a technique called rotoscoping. A live film was shot of actors playing parts and then artists drew over it to produce animated characters. It was hardly new or state of the art. It dates back to 1915 and was developed by Max Fleishcher. Bakshi was merely trying to produce something cheaply and quickly instead of doing traditional Disney animation with 24 hand drawn frames per second.

Rotoscoping is certainly an old technique; however, this was the first entirely rotoscoped animated feature and utterly alien to many viewers. Traditional cel animation was planned for the film, and some was actually shot, but severe budget constraints canned the idea. It was perhaps the uniqueness of the filming that alienated many viewers used to Disney animation (I will say in Bakshi's defense that Disneys animation in the 70's was, in contrast, even more deplorable, not anything like masterpieces such as Bambi, Pinocchio and Fantasia).

I would not call Boromir as a Viking or Aragorn as more or less a Native American tracker as faithful to the JRRT text. They were both ridiculous.

You are, of course, correct about Sven 'Forkbeard' Boromir; however, the rugged, tanned and weatherbeaten features of Bakshi's Boromir evoked Tolkien more closely than Viggo's poster-pinup image, appearing foul but ultimately fair (Viggo looks ready for a second career as a rock singer). Aragorn was, after all, a ranger who spent many decades in the wild. It's rather like T.H. White representation of Lancelot as somewhat ugly but noble, rather than the epitome of a handsome preux chevalier.

It would have been interesting to see what Bakshi could have produced if he had Jackson's deep financial backing.

A Little Green

04-28-2008, 07:08 AM

I actually watched the Bakshi cartoon around a week ago, and it really isn't that bad. Some things I found much better than in PJ's films, actually. For example the scene where they encounter the nazgûl in the Shire was really creepy. Also, I liked the way Bakshi and his crew had the daring to go on with their own artistic vision of the story, yet still remaining faithful to the original. The atmosphere was at times very strong, for example in the scene where the Rohirrim attack the orcs. I loved also the way things were given time.

There was of course much that I didn't like. Legolas' face was mostly ridiculous (though from a distance he actually looked much more convincing than Orlando Bloom), Boromir and Agagorn's clothes were horrid (Aragorn wouldn't have been so bad if he would have had trousers on... :p), Saruman was wrong (he had no charisma to his voice and his character was reduced to a grumpy, evil old fellow) and Galadriel looked like a barbie doll or a Disney princess. Gollum was ugly, but on the other hand, though I love Andy Serkis' Gollum, I liked the idea that Gollum isn't at all cute.

And the balrog had wings! :D

Sauron the White

04-28-2008, 07:20 AM

Mothoron - I have long suspected that the Bakshi film was not a hit was because the visual style was so jarringly inconsistent to the viewer. He tried to combine too many different techniques and it all came out as a mess. While he did rotoscope the main figures to gain a realistic look, his orcs were fuzzy and looked like film negatives. And then he hired some talented painters to do beautiful paintings of buildings like Rivendell but then had other landscape backgrounds which looked fuzzy and badly out of focus. For Bakshi, it was a technique born out of necessity and economics. If it worked, it would have been hailed as the work of an innovator..... (see the recent CLOVERFIELD movie which made a fortune for bad camera work) .... but it simply did not work due to its unevenness.

We would differ greatly on Viggo as Aragorn versus the Bakshi version. I felt Mortensen was nearly perfect in the role and he perfectly captured the right combination a character that both men and women viewers could relate to for completely different reasons. I still think that the Bakshi version only needs the stereotypical headress to be a complete Native American.

I think the human character in the GULLIVERS TRAVELS 1939 by Fleischer - was also completely rotoscoped... and not very well.

Bêthberry

04-28-2008, 09:30 AM

. . . Viggo's poster-pinup image, appearing foul but ultimately fair (Viggo looks ready for a second career as a rock singer). Aragorn was, after all, a ranger who spent many decades in the wild. . . .

Designer stubble is so . . . fake, a kind of costive, cheap, would-be swagger. I think he would have been laughed off the Survivor island even before the competition started.

But then I think both Aragorn and Faramir are difficult characters to carry off, particularly in today's culture, caught as we are between Rambo/Bruce Willis and Will Farrell/Ben Affleck. I don't think either Bakshi or Jackson even attempted to present them as contemporary versions of Tolkien's characters. That concept of masculinity just don't cut it no more, no more, no more.

Just one woman's opinion, of course. ;)

skip spence

04-28-2008, 09:41 AM

Did you notice the similarity of some of the scenes in R/B's and PJ's films? It's been a while since I've seen either version of the trilogy but one scene stands out in my memory: when the Nazgul enter the Hobbits' room in Bree and stab the pillows. That one was almost identical in both movies, wasn't it? And it wasn't taken from the book either.

SteamChip

05-07-2008, 03:36 PM

Morthoron

05-07-2008, 09:08 PM

>What a load of moaners<
Bush gets more respect
>Frodo's always being stupid with the Ring<
Yeah that totally ruined the theater –DVD release extended-version for me that I went out and bought each episode of and saw six times each to see if that would change… one of these days I’ll go on an internet rampage

Wait...you're being sarcastic, aren't you?

>Alright, let me get this straight

People who like the Bakshi creation are historical sentimentalists who appreciate bold expressions of artistic experimentation and creative thought applied to the grandiose work --Lord of the Rings. They are, however, put off that the work was not completed.

People who don’t like Bakshi’s work (critics) are upset:

1. --The artwork was not run through a 3d ray tracer
2. -–Bakshi’s gollum and how the critics imagined gollum are different
3. --Gandolf pointed out a few things too many times

Is that it?

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic.

I thought Bakshi's LotR was good at the time (having seen it at the theater on its release); unfortunately, it has not worn well with age (more like a refrigerated bottle of Zinfandel than a nice, tawny port), and the animation is rather garish in spots. When considering a list of classic animation, Bakshi's LotR is certainly not at the top of the charts (although, as I stated previously, it is miles ahead of the grotesque Rankin-Bass TV version).

In addition, I thought Bakshi's version adhered better to the original plot than Jackson's (which is a plus for me -- far fewer jarring story deviations). Oh, and I was very disappointed that the film ended in midstream (or mid-Rohan more precisely). Now I'll never know if Frodo destroys the ring!

Sauron the White

05-08-2008, 06:10 AM

Steam Chip - having read this thread, I do not see anyone who expressed the feelings that you posted here.
I did not like it because
1 - it was a visual hodge podge of styles that ended up a mess
2- certain scenes looked as if they had been developed as negatives (orcs) and were just plain disturbing on the eyes
3- turning Boromir into a Viking and Aragorn into a Native-american tracker was way too much for my tastes
4- the battle scenes were simply terrible on almost any level

A Little Green

05-08-2008, 11:52 AM

Did you notice the similarity of some of the scenes in R/B's and PJ's films? Nice that you pointed it out, because yes, in fact I did. The pillow scene is one, and also the one where the Nazgûl is searching for the hobbits in the Shire and they hide under a tree-root... It is strikingly similar, especially because it's not described that way in the book. I found it very interesting.

Morthoron

05-08-2008, 12:44 PM

Nice that you pointed it out, because yes, in fact I did. The pillow scene is one, and also the one where the Nazgûl is searching for the hobbits in the Shire and they hide under a tree-root... It is strikingly similar, especially because it's not described that way in the book. I found it very interesting.

Supposedly, Jackson studied the Bakshi film and used several of the same camera angles and set up scenes in the same manner as the cartoon.

Formendacil

05-08-2008, 04:39 PM

It has been an equally long time since I've watched either Bakshi's LotR or Jackson's LotR, and (I think) about as long since I saw the Rankin-Bass cartoons.

I say "thank goodness" to all three of them.

Unlike just about anyone in my age group, I saw the Bakshi and Rankin-Bass movies before Jackson's movies ever came out, and I had already read the books a few times--unusual since I'm right in that college-aged group that was the upper end of the "saw Tolkien for the first time in Jackson's movies" aged group.

My reactions, when I first saw Rankin-Bass and Bakshi were that they got it all wrong. Even so, I was young and foolish enough that I watched them two or three times, or more. At the time, I was rather annoyed at the liberties taken with the storyline. Legolas!! Where's Glorfindel? As a result of those movies, when Jackson's movies came out I was, on the one hand, really looking forward to what sort of a good job could be done in terms of visuals... but also burned once about storylines, and went in very wary.

Looking back after half a dozen years and more since FotR first came out, I have a different appreciation for the Bakshi movie and the Rankin-Bass Hobbit (the Rankin-Bass RotK, on the other hand, plays so poorly, it is a joke). At this point in my life, I have not watched Jackson's movies in a couple years, and I don't want to. My mental vision of the LotR was scarred first by Bahshi then by Jackson, and I've done my utmost to forget the ravages of both. But they are different sorts of ravages, I would say. Bakshi, and Rankin-Bass, scarred me in their visuals and audios. They simply did not have the clarity or seriousness or colour that I imagined in Middle-earth. Nobody looked quite like I imagined, and no place looked grand enough.

Jackson, on the other hand, captured many (almost all) of the visuals spot on. The scores were exactly the epic feel LotR deserved. But... it wasn't Middle-earth anymore. It was comic Merry, Pippin, and Gimli, girl-power Arwen, angsty Aragorn, and teen Frodo. Not that these were NECESSARILY the artistic presentations Jackson was trying to give, but they have a distinct flavour of it to me.

By contrast, I have a renewed appreciation for the Bakshi attempt. The audio-visual of the movie fails abysmally, and the movie can scarcely be redeemed since, after all, movies ARE an audio-visual medium; but it has my respect, at least, for a serious, faithful job. Much of the problem is simply monetary.

Things like pantsless Aragorn and Viking Boromir, I suspect, are as much elements of the movie being dated as we'll start noticing things about Jackson's movies in twenty years.

Nowadays I've just sworn the movies off altogether.

Mithalwen

05-09-2008, 02:04 PM

It is so long ago .. I remember being terribly astonished that it just finished - I don't think any warning was given on the box! I remember that Galadriel was big eyed and a bit tarty. I had forgotten about "Aragorn where's your troosers?"

Lol...

SteamChip

05-10-2008, 02:36 PM

Thank you Sauron the White I got me another piece:

—the orcs looked too garish,

And so
People who don’t like Bakshi’s work (critics) are upset:

1. --The artwork was not run through a 3d ray tracer
2 --The orcs are too garish and don’t accessorize well *
3. -–Bakshi’s gollum and how the critics imagined gollum are different
4. --Gandolf pointed out a few things too many times

*(covering the gripes about the unevenness of style, not necessarily comparing it to modern animation)

Although in the case of the orcs SPECIFICALLY (as opposed to a style castagory) he MIGHT have been doing it in purpose to make it look jarring and disturbing.

>>turning Boromir into a Viking and Aragorn into a Native-american tracker was way too much for my tastes<<

My apologizes --mustard and ketchup tend to dampen the nuances of flavor

That’s like-- Bakshi’s gollum and how the critics imagined gollum are different (characters don’t look the way you imagine they should look)

And / or Gandolf pointed out a few things too many times (characters don’t act or speak the way you imagine them to)

Battle scenes -- do we need more intestines, or less intestines?

Morthoron

05-10-2008, 04:54 PM

And so People who don’t like Bakshi’s work (critics) are upset:

1. --The artwork was not run through a 3d ray tracer
2 --The orcs are too garish and don’t accessorize well *
3. -–Bakshi’s gollum and how the critics imagined gollum are different
4. --Gandolf pointed out a few things too many times

*(covering the gripes about the unevenness of style, not necessarily comparing it to modern animation)

Although in the case of the orcs SPECIFICALLY (as opposed to a style castagory) he MIGHT have been doing it in purpose to make it look jarring and disturbing.

I am wondering why you have this incessant need to summarize a discussion regarding folks likes/dislikes about the Bakshi film. From what I can gather, you may well be an inveterate BAKSHI APOLOGIST (one of at least three or four on the internet) who does not take kindly to any negative mention of the film, referring to anyone who does so as 'critics' (critics) in parentheses. Do you have an opinion (critique) you wish to share with the forum (critics)? Or will you be offering further summaries as the discussion progresses (or digresses, as the case may be)?

My apologizes --mustard and ketchup tend to dampen the nuances of flavor

Well, I've never been a catsup lover, but mustard (particularly with horseradish), judiciously applied to a corned beef or pastrami sandwich, can be revelatory.

Battle scenes -- do we need more intestines, or less intestines?

Oh, more intestines certainly; particularly since beheadings have so proliferated in films nowadays that they are becoming passe.

SteamChip

05-10-2008, 06:49 PM

Morthoron

05-11-2008, 11:51 AM

Lets put it this way, If I had a little bit of cash, I would buy up the Bakshi film, knock off the last minute or so then finish it with another 90 minutes.

A little bit of cash? Hmmm...well, the original Bakshi film cost $3 million to make ($6 million if you add in the John Boorman script that was eventually thrown out). In today's market, that's probaly closer to $20-30 million, given the need of heavy investment in technology (unless, of course, you find an animation studio with all the equipment at hand like Pixar or Disney -- which would not be a Tolkien choice). Add in the amount that Zaentz's Tolkien Enterprises would demand for licensing, and you've got a formidable amount to shake out of your piggy bank.

Come to think of it, no need to finish, Rankin/Bass' already did, hmm spend my money on something else then.

In the kindest terms, that is a rather dubious legacy. I prefer Rankin-Bass' Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer (the one with stop-action puppetry) to the LotR debacle; after all, as everybody knows 'Bumbles bounce!'.

Aaron

05-12-2008, 12:22 PM

Morthoron

05-13-2008, 12:20 PM

The cartoon is terrible, Boromirr is portrayed as some sort of Viking and his death is robbed of any emotion. The live action sections are cringeworthy and seem like one long drug trip. Sam is robbed of any of his depth, you never once suspect that he has hidden reserves of courage and toughness.
And don't get me started on Saruman.
An abortion of an adaptation.

Now see, I think referring to Bakshi's film as 'an abortion' is perhaps a bit too strong of a description. Like I said in a previous post, it suffers from being dated, certainly, but I think it remains truer to Tolkien in many instances than does Jackson's interpretation, and to greater effect (as mentioned previously, Frodo defying the Nazgul at Bruinen Ford, the Nazgul in Bree, etc.). It has it plusses and minuses (perhaps much more to the negative than positive), but it was a valiant effort given the circumstances, and one should at least laud Bakshi for the attempt. Having seen the film upon first release, I can say with certainty (dimmed by age perhaps) that it was welcomed by those hungry for Tolkien material (just as the publication of The Silmarillion was a year prior), and more folks were upset that Bakshi never finished the sequel than were annoyed by his rotoscoping.

One could be a bit more harsher on Jackson, given his far greater budget and almost limitless access to technology. In fact, I consider Jackson's inane interpolations and ego-driven script maunderings to be far greater sins than anything Bakshi did.

Sauron the White

05-13-2008, 02:11 PM

Morthoron

05-13-2008, 03:13 PM

I felt -- and do feel - quite the opposite.
It is interesting that the source material - LOTR - was the same but the reception of the two versions could not have been more different. Bakshi's film was a flop in so many ways inclduing artistically, box office return, critical acceptance, and was forgotten by industry awards. Jacksons adaption, as we all know, was a wild success in all those areas of measurement.

*shrugs*

Not to niggle, but you're letting your animosity color your representation of the facts:

It was a box office success according to many sources on the net, grossing $30.5 million in 1978 dollars, with a budget of only $3-4 million (a 100% profit is quite respectable, I'd say).

It was nominated for Hugo and Saturn awards (Saturns did not have a best animated film category until 2004, and the Hugo has never had one) as well as winning a Golden Griffon. As you may not be aware, full-length animated films rarely receive any Academy Award or other major film recognition (in 1991 Disney's Beauty and the Beast was the first animated film ever to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Film).

Critical review was mixed, not universally panned. Check your sources.

Its the singer - not the song.

Ah, but there is no tune if there are none to pay the piper. Bakshi managed to get a lot out of the tin whistle he could afford; who knows how he would have played had he been handed Jackson's Stradivarius.

Again, it's all a matter of opinion, I suppose. It was certainly not great, but it was not as abysmal as you make it out to be. Thus, I believe I have adequately defended mediocrity.

Sauron the White

05-13-2008, 03:35 PM

I agree that Bakshi was handicapped by the budget he had to work with. That applies to almost every filmmaker inclduing Jackson who had to work within the constraints of a budget, although larger by comparison. My complaint is with how Bakshi spent his money. The film is a mismash of styles that are at times at odds with each other. He hired such artists as Mike Ploog - who did these enchanting light hearted classical Disney drawings - and then hired other artists who worked in a very fuzzy, almost impressionistic style. Then we have the weird negative images of the orcs which defy almost any identifiable style.

Pick a style - any style - and stick with it. Bakshi's LOTR was not FANTASIA with individual vignettes telling individual stories with individual styles and approaches. It was suppose to be one film and as such with one vision.

If Bakshi's film returned a 100% or better profit as you indicate, I wonder why the second half of that film was not given the greenlight? If those figures are true and accurate, I would have thought that the studio would gladly put up the funds to double or triple their investment yet again.

The HUGO and SATURN awards are not given by the professional film community. As such, they are not an expression of film excellence in the same sense that the Oscars and Bafta's are. I guess one could take the approach that an award is an award is an award. For my money, I put them in a far different - and lower - category.

Morthoron

05-13-2008, 04:30 PM

The film is a mismash of styles that are at times at odds with each other. He hired such artists as Mike Ploog - who did these enchanting light hearted classical Disney drawings - and then hired other artists who worked in a very fuzzy, almost impressionistic style. Then we have the weird negative images of the orcs which defy almost any identifiable style. .

I blame Tim Burton, whose first animation job was on Bakshi's LotR. He is by definition weird.

If Bakshi's film returned a 100% or better profit as you indicate, I wonder why the second half of that film was not given the greenlight? If those figures are true and accurate, I would have thought that the studio would gladly put up the funds to double or triple their investment yet again.

Mr. White, I request that you immediately desist in using logic regarding the Hollywood process of making films. If one were to use logic, then Bakshi would have had more money for his budget to begin with. Hollywood defies logic, much like Wile E. Coyote complained that the Roadrunner defied the law of gravity (to which the Roadrunner replied he had never studied law).

The HUGO and SATURN awards are not given by the professional film community. As such, they are not an expression of film excellence in the same sense that the Oscars and Bafta's are. I guess one could take the approach that an award is an award is an award. For my money, I put them in a far different - and lower - category.

*Grumbles* You must have missed the part of my last post explaining that full-length animated films did not receive Academy Award nominations during most of the history of the Oscars.

Makar

05-13-2008, 06:19 PM

Sorry if this is mentioned here already, but tl;dr.

I once read that Jackson had seen the Bakshi cartoon as young lad and quite enjoyed it. In fact, in my opinion, he liked it so much that he stole a few shots from it. What comes directly to mind is Bakshi and Jackson's portrayals of the Hobbits hiding under the tree near the rode in Three is Company as well as the scene where the Black Riders stab the stuffed pillows. There are only so many ways to do a scene, one might say, but several are strikingly similar. Does anyone remember any others?

Sauron the White

05-14-2008, 07:29 AM

from Morthoron

*Grumbles* You must have missed the part of my last post explaining that full-length animated films did not receive Academy Award nominations during most of the history of the Oscars.

No I did not miss it ... or overlook it ... or ignore it. It would be more accurate and inclusive to say that the Motion Picture Academy did not bestow its higher awards on any fantasy based film regardless of its medium or format until ROTK. That applied to animated gems like FANTASIA or PINNOCHIO and to non-animated films such as WIZARD OF OZ and ET. Jackson's ROTK sweep of 11 out of 11 nominations into awards, including Best Film of the Year, rewrote that particular truism of the Oscars.

Morthoron

05-14-2008, 04:39 PM

No I did not miss it ... or overlook it ... or ignore it. It would be more accurate and inclusive to say that the Motion Picture Academy did not bestow its higher awards on any fantasy based film regardless of its medium or format until ROTK. That applied to animated gems like FANTASIA or PINNOCHIO and to non-animated films such as WIZARD OF OZ and ET. Jackson's ROTK sweep of 11 out of 11 nominations into awards, including Best Film of the Year, rewrote that particular truism of the Oscars.

There have been several fantasies that have been nominated for Academy awards, like for Best Picture (Wizard of Oz, Dr. Doolittle, A Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, Babe, The Ten Commandments...okay, I'm joking about that one), but did not win (but won Oscars in other categories); however, no full-length cartoon was ever nominated for a major Oscar until 1991 (Beauty and the Beast). And, no, I don't believe Bakshi's LotR warranted a Best Picture nomination in any case.

By the way, were you aware that only one G-Rated film has ever won Best Picture Oscar? It was the musical Oliver!

Essex

05-15-2008, 11:00 AM

William Cloud Hicklin

05-17-2008, 08:15 PM

That concept of masculinity just don't cut it no more, no more, no more

What about Indiana Jones?;)

Incidentally, most might be interested in one moose's take on the Bakshi version: http://www.flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

Annatar

05-29-2008, 11:22 AM

It wasn't good.

Essex

05-30-2008, 05:12 AM

yes it was....

Miss Squadilla

09-18-2008, 06:39 PM

I laughed and I cried... at how much it sucked.
But it was entertaining, in its own unique way.

They made Sam look like be got hit in the face with a brick, or an ugly stick. He was SO badly portrayed. And he was stupid and had an annoying voice too.

Boo Radley

09-23-2008, 08:15 AM

I remember seeing it when it first came out and I thought it was really, really cool.

Then, I watched it again a few years ago. I'd picked up the VHS tape at the library and brought it home to show my wife who'd never seen it before.
A few minutes into the movie, I said, "Don't worry... it gets better".
Then, a few minutes after that, I said, "No... I don't think it does", and stopped the film.

Sorry, it just did not stand the test of time for me.

MaultheStoor

02-12-2009, 08:39 AM

In the cartoon version of The Hobbit, Bilbo looked like a Cabbage Patch Kid, Gollum looked like the toad I stepped on last week, and the scene where Bilbo kills the spiders was just weird. I mean, what was with the whole spinning camera effect? Coudn't they have just shown the spiders' visions blurring or fading to back? I almost had an epileptic seizure from watching it!

Feanor411

02-13-2009, 05:56 AM

such an interesting discussion!

I remember, a few years ago "Entertainment Weekly" ran a sidebar about Bakshi, and I got the impression that he didn't get to make the movie he wanted. It seems he and Saul Zaentz didn't see eye to eye on a lot. It's too bad--his animated "LotR" has the bones of a good movie, but the flaws are so huge and obvious, it makes it more difficult to appreciate the good aspects. Is that the one where the Ringwraiths are flying around on winged horses? Or is that the Rankin/Bass "RotK"? Anyway, that's probably the bottom of the barrel for me. And the orcs. And Sam. And everything else that everyone's already mentioned.

Rankin/Bass' "The Hobbit" was my true intro. to Tolkien--I saw it on TV when I was a kid. I remember being very impressed by Gollum (more true to the book than Jackson's), and for some reason always remembered the line "Deucedly fine blade." I just watched it again right after re-reading the book, and it's not quite as accurate as I'd remembered. I still think it was a good adaptation--all the essentials were there, and the changes generally helped the story along.

The R/B "RotK," on the other hand, is easily the worst adaptation I've ever seen. Any value, for me, is purely ironic (and there's not quite enough of that, either). "Is there some hobbit in YOU? IS THERE???" Pleeeeeease! I have to say, I tend to be a purist about these things, but I much preferred Peter Jackson's interpretation of Eowyn slaying the Witch King to the technically more accurate one in the R/B cartoon. The "foul dwimmerlaik" line just didn't work for me, whereas Miranda Otto did such a KILLER job displaying the emotions Tolkien describes in the book (you can even see the tears on her cheeks--a critical character element).

So, on a scale of 1-10, "Hobbit"-6, "LotR"-4, "RotK"-1.

TheOrcWithNoName

05-18-2009, 06:05 AM

Morsul the Dark

05-29-2009, 09:43 PM

I got "the Hobbit" from the dollar store, I think that was quite good despite gollum's appearence as a toad. I watch it every now and again. now LOTR

that's a different animal, it varies vastly, the ringwraiths I thought were well done... okay so that's about it. Now it wasn't because of bad effects (I love Godzilla effects aren't overly important) but I mean Boromir is a viking? Gimli is literally a garden gnome... an Aragorn looks like a native american(although that one seems fine to me seeing as he is a ranger still though.)The troll in moria belly bumps people. And most annoying Gollum;s speech is far too articulate.

I mean the orcs look cool and some of the styles are nice

OH! how could I forget what's up with Saruman the "red??" and his wacky LSD tower?

I mean I hate to say it but... I saw Fellowship of the ring and I wanted to read the book.

Had I saw this I would have avoided the book.

and someone mentioned Sam My friend and I watched the whole movie Just to laugh at him.

Pitchwife

10-31-2009, 05:11 PM

I'm just watching the Bakshi film for the first time in about ten years or so (thanks to YouTube) and noticed a little detail I'd like to share.
During the scene of Gandalf's visit in Isengard, right before Gandalf and (S)Aruman have their light-show duel that ends with Gandalf being mysteriously teleported to the top of Orthanc, a vague figure steps in from the background to hand Saruman his staff. We don't get to see that figure clearly, as Saruman is obscuring our view of him, but we get a fleeting glimpse of somebody rather short in a dark, hooded cloak, the hood shadowing a pale, bloated face. I probably only recognized him because I've seen the whole film several times before, but with hindsight it's clear that this is Wormtongue.
Now I've been wondering for a while how Gandalf actually found out that Gríma was in Saruman's pay, and surmised he may have seen him in Isengard while he was imprisoned there, so I was quite delighted by this find. Shows that all the shortcomings of the film (which I won't deny) notwithstanding, Bakshi Beagle & Co. did give some thought to what they were doing, and I think it was rather nice of them to care about such a tiny detail as this.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

11-01-2009, 06:17 AM

I first saw this film back in 1982 I think, either on video or terrestrial TV.

Back then, before the age of home computers, video games, sfx & cgi, I thought it was pretty good for what it was. Okay so the finished product was pretty poor compared to today's slick offerings,

Not to pick on you personally, but I've seen this kind of comment over and over again on this thread. The reality is that even in 1978 the consensus was that the Bakshi film was terrible. Nobody (over the age of about 12) thought that animation was any good back then either!

There were better animated films made in the 1930s! Check out "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" - 1937 - for an example of something done well 40 years before Bakshi's dire attempt.

In fact, it has only been in recent years that CGI has come to play a part in animated movies. For example, "The Lion King" - 1994 - is all "traditional" animation. CGI didn't become popular in animation until after "Toy Story" - 1995 - and of course that film is all CGI.

CGI in itself is not always that great ... I've seen shockingly bad CGI cartoons that were made for television just a few years ago.

Anyway, compare Bakshi's film to "The Lion King" ... both made using old school animation techniques. TLK looks fantastic and Bakshi's film looks like a mess. Even the early parts of Bakshi's film, the best looking parts, still have bad moments.

Frankly, Bakshi was just a lazy filmmaker. He had made two full-length animated movies before "The Lord of the Rings" - "Fritz the Cat" (which uses a kind of rotoscope technique since almost all the backgrounds are drawn over real footage of New York) and "Wizards" which is probably his best film.

"Wizards" is a fantasy/allegory set in a future world where old Nazi propaganda films fall into the hands of an evil wizard and he brings them to life with the power of magic. The climactic battle scene between the forces of good and evil was done with rotoscoping, in much the same way as "The Lord of the Rings", due to Bakshi running out of money. He commented "I thought that if we dropped all the detail, it would look very artistic, and very beautiful, and I felt, why bother animating all of this? I'm looking for a way to get realism into my film and get real emotion."

Unfortunately Bakshi is full of it. The rotoscoped animation in his films looks terrible ... and we thought it looked terrible in 1978. It was only done because of budget limitations and because Bakshi essentially couldn't be bothered animating his action sequences properly. It's really nothing to do with the "state of the art" of animation in the 1970s because these were low budget movies. As far as "The Return of the King" and "The Hobbit" go - they were low budget "made for television" movies aimed at children, not even "real" movies. At least the songs in "The Return of the King" are sort of amusing in a camp way if you don't take your Tolkien too seriously!

There are a few moments in Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" that are quite good. Some of the moments with The Black Riders, the famous shot of the Ring bouncing, the voice acting of the guy who portrays Gollum ... but they hardly make up for the awfulness of the rest of the film. As for Bakshi's film being "more faithful" to the books - well, it uses more actual dialogue from the books but it's hardly more faithful in any tangible way. Besides, it only goes to show how you can quote plenty of lines from a book and still make a terrible adaptation!

Lastly, John Hurt is a great actor but he is completely miscast as Aragorn.

Jackson's films have some shortcomings as adaptions - going to Osgiliath, dumbing down Saruman, using Gimli as comic-relief, trying to turn Aragorn into a main character and therefore saddling him with a stupid "arc", not developing Merry and Pippin properly, not understanding the point of the Scouring (and thus leaving it out) - but at least they are not badly made films. You can't point to CGI as some kind of saviour either, because there isn't that much CGI in the films. Most of the film uses real locations ... real sets (not green screen) ... detailed miniatures ... forced perspective to make the "hobbit actors" look smaller, thousands of extras. Gollum is the obvious exception, of course!

Naturally there are CGI elements inserted into various shots ... but compared to most modern films of this kind, not that many. It's one of the reasons why the film works well - even Gollum is played by a real actor, even if he has been painted out and replaced by a CGI character.

My main complaints about Jackson's films (other than the ones I listed earlier)?

1. Too much action and not enough suspense - the Black Riders are wonderfully ominous early on but once Aragorn waves some burning sticks at them they are not longer scary and the "action film" style kicks in.

2. Mordor should be scary as hell (literally) but instead is terribly anticlimactic once Frodo and Sam get there. It's just grey and boring. The film seems to have run out of steam by this point. This is partly down to the problem generated by the "too much action and not enough suspense" style of Jackson's direction. It's hard to believe that this is the same guy who directed the chilling "Heavenly Creatures"!

3. In the amount of time Jackson spends saying "goodbye" to the characters he could have given us a quick "Scouring". The Scouring of the Shire is essential for the character development of Merry and Pippin and would also have given a satisfactory sendoff to Saruman.

Pitchwife

11-01-2009, 03:44 PM

I can't claim to be an expert on animation, so I won't go into the technical questions that POTH has commented on quite competently, as far as I can tell. From my point of view, the rotoscoping works best on such scenes as the early confrontations with the Black Riders, the fight with the Orcs in Moria and to some degree the tide of evil in the final battle at Helm's Deep, to which it lends a somewhat surreal, 'otherworldly' quality which I quite like; but I agree it gets rather weird in the second half of the film.
(Which reminds me - when I first saw the film in cinema back in the winter of 1978/79, I was on the eve of coming down with the flu and got rather feverish during the viewing, so I actually wondered how much of the weird visuals in the later half might be due to my rising temperature. A rather psychedelic experience!)
And Leonard Rosenman did a great job on the score, as far as I'm concerned. The main theme is touching and unforgettable, as are the dirge for Gandalf in Lothlórien and the choir in the final battle scenes (if you listen closely, you'll notice that for want of better lyrics, he had them chanting his own name backwards - 'Namnesor Dranoel'; quaint, but it works!).
As for Bakshi vs Jackson, I'll be the first to admit that PJ handled a number of things much better - such as presenting Boromir as a likeable character who just temporarily succumbed to a temptation to strong for him, and Sam as the hero he is rather than a comic potato. (Even the Rankin/Bass ROTK, abominable as it is in many aspects, brought out the heroic side of Sam better than Bakshi - but then again, we don't really get that much of that side of Sam in the parts of the book Bakshi covers.) I guess the root of all my qualms with PJ is that he came so damn close to getting it right in so many ways that it hurts all the more when he messes up and gets off on some completely gratuitous nonsensical tangent.
Which finally brings me to another point in favour of the animated versions (even the R/B ones, I'm afraid). All adaptations of a work of literature in a visual medium - whether mere illustration, animation or live action - influence and limit our own imagination of the characters and events to some degree; and just as illustrations are, in this respect, less 'harmful' than movies, animation is, in my subjective view, one step further removed from pretending to be 'the real thing' than live action, as we're more conscious of looking at everything through someone else's artistic filter.
Looking at it from a slightly different angle: Michael Moorcock, in his rather blasphemous essay on Tolkien 'Epic Pooh', claimed that Tolkien was so successful because we, the readers, are actually much better writers than the Professor himself was and make up for his literary shortcomings by the use of our own imaginations. This is not the thread to debate his statement as far as the books are concerned, but I think it applies to the films in a way: in our minds, we're all better film-makers than Bakshi, so we can flesh out the gaps and smooth out his mistakes while we're watching and still enjoy the show. With a live action movie like PJ's, we don't have that much leeway to exercise our own imagination, we depend more on the film-maker to get it right for us, and are more disappointed if he doesn't. Or that's how it seems to me.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

11-04-2009, 03:14 PM

I guess the root of all my qualms with PJ is that he came so damn close to getting it right in so many ways that it hurts all the more when he messes up and gets off on some completely gratuitous nonsensical tangent.

Yes, I couldn't have said it better myself, Pitchwife! That is exactly my feeling.

...in our minds, we're all better film-makers than Bakshi, so we can flesh out the gaps and smooth out his mistakes while we're watching and still enjoy the show. With a live action movie like PJ's, we don't have that much leeway to exercise our own imagination, we depend more on the film-maker to get it right for us, and are more disappointed if he doesn't. Or that's how it seems to me.

I think some of that is "animation vs. live action" ... but some of it is just "bad film maker vs. good film maker". There is no doubt that PJ is really good at making films, but he is a bit like Steven Spielberg in that his films look fantastic, but they sometimes lack a certain something. The lights are on but nobody is at home, so to speak. The appearance is there, but the substance is lacking, or wrong. PJ knows how to make films, that's for sure, but does he know how to make LOTR?

The problem is that because PJ is a good film maker, we are not left with much room to imagine our own version. He's already overloaded us with memorable visuals ...

Mugwump

11-22-2009, 09:34 AM

What do you think of the Bakshi cartoon?
I saw it when I was much younger. Technically it was interesting for its "cartoon drawn by tracing over live action film" method, which at the time was considered novel and quite innovative.

My main problem with the film was that, not having read the novel, the cartoon-film was confusing -- I couldn't follow who all the characters were and what they were doing, or why. But mostly what I hated about it was that it was a lie. It was entitled Lord of the Rings but it covered only about the first half of the novel.

... the Elves were worse than I'd remembered. They weren't actually green, more like bluish-gray. Their bodies were squat but their legs were long. Their eyes were nothing short of evil and surly. They were balding, and the hair they had was wispy and stringly. Their hangs and feet were amphibian. They were butt-ugly. In short, they were the exact opposite of what Elves should look like. ... I'm wondering...does anyone know of a motivation for depicting the Elves this way? I mean, did the animators ever explain why the Elves were so unlike "real" Elves? Or were they, as others have suggested, just high?
It will be hard for most people today to understand, but our vision of elves today is largely formed by Lord of the Rings, in which Tolkien restored the original ideas of how the "elves of faerie" were portrayed in myth. What's hard to realize is how strongly the popular conception of elves had been shaped by hundreds of years of bad fairy tale and folklore caricature. Until Tolkien the popular conception of elves was more like the "Keebler elves" or "Santa's elves" -- leprechauns or wee Victorian pixie-fairies.

As a result, early artistic renderings of Tolkien's elves were often quite "off" from what we understand them to be today. An example was the first recording I had of The Lord of the Rings, a dramatic reading that was published in the 1970's by Jabberwocky Audio on cassette tape. It was very well produced, and a worthy effort... except for one thing: all the elves spoke with very high-pitched, falsetto "pixie" voices, more squeaky even than Minnie Mouse's.

Which was really too bad. The author of the script, who had done a very good job (for a BBC radio performance in 1954, I believe), must have had a fit if and when he heard the way these American actors portrayed his elves 20 years later. It was very funny, in a sad way.

This version was rereleased in 2001 on CD and is still available (photo below), unfortunately with the same squeaky elf voices.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A1ZADKA4L._SS500_.jpg

Pitchwife

11-22-2009, 12:21 PM

but our vision of elves today is largely formed by Lord of the Rings, in which Tolkien restored the original ideas of how the "elves of faerie" were portrayed in myth.
Or so he claimed. For an interesting discussion of the differences between Tolkien's Elves and the elves/fairies of traditional folk mythology, see this thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12236) (one of my personal all-times favourites).
Horrible as the Rankin/Bass elves are as depictions of Tolkien's Quendi, their look somehow suggests a glimpse of the dark and malicious side (if not the dangerous beauty) of traditional fairies.

Nerwen

11-23-2009, 07:53 PM

This is not the thread to debate his statement as far as the books are concerned, but I think it applies to the films in a way: in our minds, we're all better film-makers than Bakshi, so we can flesh out the gaps and smooth out his mistakes while we're watching and still enjoy the show. With a live action movie like PJ's, we don't have that much leeway to exercise our own imagination, we depend more on the film-maker to get it right for us, and are more disappointed if he doesn't. Or that's how it seems to me.

The problem is that because PJ is a good film maker, we are not left with much room to imagine our own version. He's already overloaded us with memorable visuals ...

Hardly fair as a criticism, though, is it? I've heard this argument before, and it strikes me as a little, well, perverse almost. However, I'd agree that it probably explains why people spend more time nitpicking the live-action films.

Mugwump

11-30-2009, 04:22 AM

Or so he claimed. ... Horrible as the Rankin/Bass elves are as depictions of Tolkien's Quendi, their look somehow suggests a glimpse of the dark and malicious side (if not the dangerous beauty) of traditional fairies.
Yes, the earlier view of faeries did portray "the other" according to the worst instincts of xenophobic racial hatred that came largely from the infusions of Germanic myth into English culture that occurred during the Saxon invasions.

But I was talking of physical characteristics of elves, Tolkien's reversal of the infantilizing of their appearance that occurred during the Victorian era. Before that they at least looked mostly human in size, stature and form.

Huscarl

12-24-2009, 06:27 PM

I have always loved this oddly inspiring film- the vivid and almost supernatural imagery it offered, and John Hurt's voice!

Those Ringwraiths were far more sinister than the LoTR trilogy's, IMHO?

This film (especially the last battle), Michael Wood and Excalibur (1981) got me gripped by history!

alatar

04-05-2010, 06:24 AM

Couldn't figure out why Peter Jackson's LotR was playing yet again on the TV this weekend. Then I saw an ad, showing that it's being released (or re-released, or re-re-released...I'm already losing count) on Blu-Ray DVD. Then I saw something even more interesting (or scary, depending on your point of view) - the Bakshi version is coming out on DVD and Blu-Ray as well!

You can read a short blurb about it here (http://comicsworthreading.com/2010/03/28/the-lord-of-the-rings-animated-by-bakshi/).

Anyone buying it?

Inziladun

04-05-2010, 09:08 AM

I bought the Bakshi cartoon on DVD a few years ago, out of a sense of nostalgia. I see no reason to spend more on the Blu-Ray. I shudder to think what all that rotoscoped animation would look like on High-def. :rolleyes:

Elemmakil

04-11-2010, 01:34 PM

Lets put it this way, If I had a little bit of cash, I would buy up the Bakshi film, knock off the last minute or so then finish it with another 90 minutes.

Of course Id have to revoice some of the dialogue, actors dying and so forth to have the new sound fit in with continuing characters with what went on before. But as far as the animation, characters, men without pants, barbie Gladreal, etc I’d keep it as faithful as possible to the original, warts and for continuity. It’s Lord of the Rings and no one else at the time was ambitious enough to take on that project.

Actually, I've given thought to something like this. Setting aside issues of copyright, etc., I wonder how hard it would be using modern computers and editing software to do what SteamChip suggests? In other words, it could almost be something someone does as a hobby in their spare time, rather than a huge dedicated project, requiring a massive investment in personnel, time, and resources.

For example, wouldn't some sort of graphics software allow one to correct such things as Aragorn's pantlessness, Saruman's weird robe, Boromir's horned helmet, etc.? Likewise, with sound editing, even using the existing dialogue, it ought to be possible to splice in or otherwise correct little things like "Aruman" or Boromir's pronunciation of MI-NUS Tirith.

Going beyond this, is it technically possible to take, say, simple film footage of individuals doing a scene, and use graphics software to overlay the animation characters over the actors? I ask because this would point the way to filming whole new scenes as SteamChip posted. One could recruit interested individuals from anywhere in the world to send in even camera phone footage to use as a basis for the animation.

Or even going well beyond this - rather than merely finishing the movie, one could add in missing scenes that fans have griped about for years, such as the Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs, among others. Remember that such would be an individual fan project, and need not be dumbed down to cater to the lowest denominator. The only stumbling blocks I foresee here are having to redo the voice acting throughout (for continuity), and any background music (though for the latter, were I in a particularly "pirate" mood, I'd go ahead and take anything whether from the original Bakshi movie, PJ's flicks, or even other music by, say, Enya, that would fit into the mood of the scene)

Now, I do not know if what I suggest is necessarily technically possible in the manner I outline above, and would need input from others far more knowledgeable about these things, but given the raw computing power that exists today (considering that what we currently have in a laptop vastly exceeds in power what NASA filled rooms with back when the Bakshi movie was released) coupled with the straightforward animation (as opposed to say Pixar style high end animation) it seems hard to believe that it couldn't be done...

Just a thought I've had for a number of years, now.

Galadriel

05-02-2010, 05:07 AM

I enjoyed it when I was eight, but after I watched it again at sixteen I wasn't very impressed. Bakshi didn't even bother to look at the back of the book to see the 'pronunciations' section. Celeborn is pronounced as 'Seleborn'. Sauron is pronounced as 'Sauuuron'.

Renzolicious

04-23-2011, 03:45 AM

I also saw this early on so it had some influence on my own imagination's creation of the characters as I read the original and heard the 1981 BBC dramatisation. It does have some good dark/evil atmosphere, and the way Gandalf was drawn was how I will always imagine him (well what I remember of the cartoon is how my imagination depicts him). But no on the whole it is terrible. Willow probably more influenced my imagination of Lord of the Rings, the small village with very little knowledge or influence in the greater world of men, and Willow and his friend who sticks around a while is pretty much how I imagine Frodo and Sam, albeit with the voices of Ian Holm and William Nighy.

Gothbogg the Ripper

04-24-2011, 06:09 AM

The cartoons was an abomination. Sam looked mentally deficient, and I really mean that, he looked simple. Saruman sounded like a common pervert, hanging outside the toilets to offer kids some candy. There was nothing in Saruman that suggested the sheer power of his oratory skills.

The 'battles' were hideous. I fast forwarded through them all. The best I can say for this steaming pile of crap is that Gandalf's voice was not terrible. Nowhere near as good as Sir Ian McKellen, but acceptable.

Overall it was a disgusting, hideous production that died a lousy slow death right before my very eyes. I just felt myself scowling harder and harder as I watched it until I wanted to spit at the screen. Truly awful.

As bad as Santa With Muscles. Just reflect on that for a moment.

Morthoron

04-24-2011, 06:03 PM

Gothbogg the Ripper

04-24-2011, 06:16 PM

So, what you're saying is that you didn't care for the cartoon? I just want to make sure before passing any judgment on your comments. After all, it's so difficult to ascertain people's true feelings on the Internet.

I hate it. I think it's an insult to the work of Tolkien.

Morthoron

04-24-2011, 07:02 PM

I hate it. I think it's an insult to the work of Tolkien.

Oh. Well then, there you have it.

I take a far more sympathetic view to the project, particularly in consideration for Bakshi's difficulty in funding the project. Not great, but not as terrible as the Rankin-Bass debacle ("Frod-o-o-o-o-o of the nine fingers!" *retches*) And I have been in possession of twelve of the orginal theater marquee placards for the past 30 years or so. They are quite marvelous looking. Perhaps I'll take them out of their folio sleeves and have them framed some day.

Inziladun

04-24-2011, 07:33 PM

The movie definitely has its flaws, but at least Bakshi was true to the book in one crucial respect: Arwen speaks not at all. :)

Galadriel

04-30-2011, 10:25 AM

The movie definitely has its flaws, but at least Bakshi was true to the book in one crucial respect: Arwen speaks not at all. :)

Poor little Glorfy doesn't speak either :(

KamexKoopa

01-01-2013, 05:41 AM

I love Bakshi's cartoon. Maybe it's a nostalgic thing because it is what got me into Tolkien, but I hold it dear in my heart :)

LordPhillock

01-01-2013, 08:22 AM

I think you guys might like a completely re-dubbed version of Bakshi's LOTR opus that was quite popular on Youtube before they took it down back in 2008. Though now that it's reuploaded (and complete) I thought it might be fun to share.

http://youtu.be/M1x3XkHs-BE

Yeah, I didn't particularly think the adaptation was that great (Bakshi's version), but the intent and attempt is quite commendable.

Lalwendë

01-01-2013, 09:03 AM

Just got to say, rotoscope wasn't innovative, it was invented way back in 1915 and was used extensively in the industry, including in Disney's Snow White which people often hold up as a great example of animation. So that wasn't the 'issue' with the film. Nor was Bakshi - he's actually really good, and any other fan of the late 60s Spider-Man cartoons will agree. I grew up on those and the little guy also loves them (thanks to me finding the DVDs in Poundland of all places).

But I saw the Bakshi cartoon at completely the wrong time. In the mid-80s. By then I was well aware that some kind of live action version was perfectly possible as ITV was showing Robin Of Sherwood which was just superb (and still is). An animation with Aragorn in undies wasn't going to cut it for me. And the Hobbits were totally wrong; then as now my benchmark is always the Hobbits. If they look like Tyrion Lannister, garden gnomes or horrible fantasy ornaments that your nan bought from a gift shop in Cleethorpes then it's something I don't want to see, thanks.

However, nowadays, I can enjoy it. Not just because Bakshi did my favourite Spider-Man cartoons, but because it's a kitsch classic. I rank it with Flash Gordon (saw this last night again - it's epic), Barbarella, Blake's 7, something from the decades when sf/fantasy was all about being fun and colourful and bizarre.