What do you think of the Bakshi cartoon?

[Morsul the Dark]

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]

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 ! 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]

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]

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.

[Essex]

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]

This is a good review of Bakshi's cartoon.

[Reg Pither]

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.

[Essex]

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?