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

gorthaur_cruel · 08-02-2004, 06:40 AM

This 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.

Essex · 08-02-2004, 07:46 AM

Gorthar, re

Quote:

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?

Encaitare · 08-02-2004, 11:18 AM

Quote:

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

08-02-2004, 07:22 AM	#2
Reg Pither Pile O'Bones Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: London Posts: 23	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. Last edited by Reg Pither; 08-02-2004 at 07:25 AM.

08-02-2004, 06:40 AM	#1
gorthaur_cruel Haunting Spirit Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 92	This is a good review of Bakshi's cartoon.