Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
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.