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

A Little Green · 05-08-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skip spence

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Little Green

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamChip

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)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamChip

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamChip

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

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.

Also, Rankin/Bass' at least TRIED to pick up the story with return of the King, it certainly is cartoon Bigfoot style change (as opposed to more realistic figure proportions), but more consistent quality and aimed at a younger audience but its Lord of the Rings. The part about them mixing it up at the crossroads in Mordor seemed more faithful to the book if I remember correctly.

The Hobbit, prelude to them all, also done in the Bigfoot style (done by the same Rankin/Bass' studio), so if one overlooks a few gaps, watching the Hobbit, Bakshis Lord of the Rings finally Return of the King , there is a start to finish animated story of the entire 4 book series.

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

05-08-2008, 04:39 PM	#3
Formendacil Dead Serious Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers. Posts: 3,328	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. __________________ I prefer history, true or feigned.

05-09-2008, 02:04 PM	#4
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,461	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... __________________ “But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.” Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace

05-10-2008, 02:36 PM	#5
SteamChip Newly Deceased Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4	is this it? 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?

05-10-2008, 06:49 PM	#7
SteamChip Newly Deceased Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4	this is IT 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. Also, Rankin/Bass' at least TRIED to pick up the story with return of the King, it certainly is cartoon Bigfoot style change (as opposed to more realistic figure proportions), but more consistent quality and aimed at a younger audience but its Lord of the Rings. The part about them mixing it up at the crossroads in Mordor seemed more faithful to the book if I remember correctly. The Hobbit, prelude to them all, also done in the Bigfoot style (done by the same Rankin/Bass' studio), so if one overlooks a few gaps, watching the Hobbit, Bakshis Lord of the Rings finally Return of the King , there is a start to finish animated story of the entire 4 book series. Come to think of it, no need to finish, Rankin/Bass' already did, hmm spend my money on something else then.