Bakshi vs. Jackson

[Merrick Took]

You guessed it, this thread is where you come to insult Ralph Bakshi's Lord Of The Rings (1978). It's also where you compare it to the recent film (and hopefully where I find someone else in this world who loves Bakshi's film as much as I do, rotoscope included).

Merrick Took

[TheJospeh]

However, it handled a lot of scenes far better than Jackson's movie did.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Merrick Took]

I think it did a great deal many things better than the movie did.

Merrick Took

[Harad]

if you search back in this forum..and it isnt the easiest thing to do...you will find at least one, maybe more, threads with this theme. Its not a bad idea to bump it up again.

I too liked the Bakshi movie, but it no way compares to the new movie because:

1. animation will never approach the power of live action
2. the resources, both monetary and computer, were so much more for PJ
3. Bakshi had the plug pulled on him making the last third of his movie pathetic...aside from the Frodo, Sam, Gollum sequence.

That being said there were a lot of good things in the first 2/3 of the movie. Some comments:

1. the opening sequence...he may bave gotten the idea wrong as to who make what rings but it did capture the essense of the history. PJ did it much better or course--PJ's Last Alliance being excellent.

2. Both left out Bombadil..Both replaced Glorfindel

3. PJ copied almost shot for shot the Nazgul in the Shire hedge and the Bree-Nazgul inn room sequence. Note that in the book the Nazgul did not invade the Bree room.

4. The "Bilbo the Monster" sequence in Rivendell is done very effectively in PJ showing the power of modern filmmaking techniques compared with the animation.

5. Bakshi had Frodo effectively defy the Nazgul at the Fords of Rivendell, something PJ is flayed alive in this forum for leaving out.

6. Bakshi has a Winged Balrog, nonsensible if you consider it then falls into the Chasm. On the other hand, I believe that the Balrog drags Gandalf down by its whip, something not done by PJ.

7. Bakshi had more instances of Gollum sssneaking after the Fellowship after Moria, something cut unaccountably by PJ.

8. Bakshi was more faithful to the book in the Parth Galen--breaking of the Fellowship sequence: e.g. he kept Frodo wearing the Ring to cross the Anduin, PJ did not. Here is one instance where I liked the PJ version better than the book.

9. Comparing the two movies after Parth Galen is impossible, because PJ hasnt gone there yet. Bakshi's Treebeard and Helm's Deep are pretty bad because, IMO, of the running out of money issue.

[MikeB]

Howdy Harad

I'm assuming you know the Bakshi film is not strictly animation.:confused:

Where were the beds the nazgul killed in Bree? Or does the movie have me remembering something that didn't happen in the books?

Laters,
I'm not the MikeB who uses a space in his name:cool:

[Harad]

Yes I do know about rotoscoping. I guess I call it animation as shorthand. Rotoscoping helped a bit..eg. the intro, the chase at the Fords of Rivendell, Moria, but most of the good stuff was animation.

In the Book, I was reminded (by Kuduk?), that it was probably NOT the Nazgul but some mortal confederates who mussed up the beds in Bree. (I reread that part and agree).

Welcom MikeB and thanks for pointing out who you arent.

[aragil]

I still say that one of the failings of Bakshi was in line delivery. Frodo jumping up and down like a schoolgirl when he sees Gandalf, and Gandalf pausing after every sentence for dramatic effect being two examples. What did I time Gandalf at in Moria?

That being said I still like Bakshi, and own it on both VHS and DVD. But PJ did much better.

[Ossiriand Blade]

One thing I found much more effective in the Bakshi movie was the depiction of Legolas and Gimli,Gimli is well-just nicer,you,feel that you actually like him,much better than Jacksons charicarture,Legolas also seems much more Elvish than Orlando Bloom his reaction to the Balrog-dropping his bow creates an impression of genuine shock that here is this ancient thing from Angband alive in front of him.I dont know how Jackson will work the Legolas/Gimli relationship that runs through LOTR they both seemed entirely one-dimensional in his FOTR.

[Harad]

Aragil,
You timed Gandalf reacting to Pipsqueek's question /comment in Balin's tomb, accurately at 6 second's. That was when I first realized I was in the presence of genius.

Frodo jumping up and down in Bakshi is little different than Frodo running and jumping into Gandalf's wagon in PJ, IMO.

-s

[Merrick Took]

Leonard Rosenman's score is simply amazing, even surpassing that of Howard Shore, in my opinion.

I also appreciate how arsty and dramatic Bakshi tries to be, while remaining true to the story. He changed less than Jackson did, that much is for certain. I don't see what most people's problem is with it? Boromir didn't look quite right, I know, but all of the voices were stellar! Legolas and Gimli, as someone mentioned, were much better in the Bakshi version (Bloom was obviously chosen simply because he was extremely talented with the bow, I wish they could have gotten a talented actor that looked like an Elf). Elrond isn't ugly in Bakshi's version. I could go on and on.

Merrick Took
PS "We are going Pippin" Was excellent. If you didn't like it, you don't understand Gandalf's character very well. Bakshi captured both his compassion and his irritability so much better than the other film.

Another thing, Peter Jackson doesn't let us see Merry and Pippin's devotion to Frodo, and they are just sort of along for the ride. Why did they even go as far as Bree?

[Snaga]

Faithful to the book or not I'm afraid I cringed repeatedly at the Bakshi film.

My 5 year old son loves it, but I have to put it in the Godzilla category of 'so awful its funny'. Sam is a hoot!

[Merrick Took]

At least he was homely and had the country bumpkin accent like he should've. I admit to liking Jackson's version more, but Bakshi's was amazing, especially for 1978.

Merrick Took

[aragil]

Merick- I didn't say that I dislike Bakshi, I said I like PJ's version better. PJ had Gandalf being equally compassionate as Bakshi- he has all of those gazes of affection towards the Hobbits, particularly Bilbo and Frodo. Gandalf was irritable towards Pippin in the movie- especially after the corpse-down-the-well and Dragon fire-work episodes. I'd say that PJ captured Gandalf's humanity well. Too well even- look at all the Tolkien fans on this website that complain about Gandalf bumping his head in Bag-end! Or look at how many people complain about Elrond being too irritable. I liked PJ's version, and I liked his Elrond (who was not pretty, but who also was not ugly) and Gandalf. I will not say that people who did not enjoy these characters don't understand them.

Merry and Pippin may come along for the ride in the PJ version, but they are no less devoted to Frodo. Merry and Pippin help Frodo to escape the Nazgul at Farmer Maggot's, protect Frodo with their bodies at Weathertop, leap bodily onto the troll after it skewers Frodo in Moria, and finally sacrifice themselves so Frodo can escape at Amon Hen. These are not exactly as they were in the book, but they are certainly instances of extreme devotion. If I had to say anything about Merry and Pippin, I would say that PJ has them as more devoted to Frodo than in the book. However, I agree with you that they didn't seem to have much motivation for joining Frodo, certainly not as much as they had in the book or even in the Bakshi cartoon.

Ossirian Blade- the buzz on the net (especially on this site) is that much of Lorien was cut, including (especially) the developing friendship of Legolas and Gimli. I guess they can develop a little during the Death March across Rohan, but I'm afraid that Helm's Deep is going to suffer because of the lack of development in Fellowship. But never fear, buzz also has it that much of Lorien will be added back in in the DVD!

[Snaga]

Originally posted by Merrick Took
At least he was homely and had the country bumpkin accent like he should've. I admit to liking Jackson's version more, but Bakshi's was amazing, especially for 1978.

Merrick Took

I'm not too sure about this. I think you always need to judge a director's achievement against the era (and therefore technical and artistic developments) and the budget.

Would I be right in guessing Bakshi didn't have a lot of money to work with?

The reason I ask is that '78 was the era of Star Wars and Alien, so creating convincing other worlds was in full swing. I think that with lots of money, a convincing adaptation would have been possible.

[Merrick Took]

Aragil, I agree. When Merry and Pippin did each of those things in the film, they brought tears to my eyes. Jackson did an excellent job of directing those scenes. I was just annoyed at the fact that they didn't have the "We're going with you Frodo." discussion, as it is one of my favourite, and it was done incredibly well in the Bakshi film.

Merrick Took

[Harad]

Bottom line I liked the Bakshi movie, but you have to admit it went kerflooey at the end.

Furthermore, the fact that is was a "flop" resulted in its being left half done.

One can not overemphasize the importance of PJ's succes, which assures that the whole story will finally be seen on film.

[Merrick Took]

I am glad there is at least one person who likes LOTR78 as well. I realize that the end, and especially Treebeard were messy. But Helm's Deep, was just amazing. And what an emotional scene, Theoden screaming "Gandalf", as the orcs close in. The music is amazing.

Merrick Took

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by aragil
I still say that one of the failings of Bakshi was in line delivery. Frodo jumping up and down like a schoolgirl when he sees Gandalf, and Gandalf pausing after every sentence for dramatic effect being two examples. What did I time Gandalf at in Moria?

That being said I still like Bakshi, and own it on both VHS and DVD. But PJ did much better.

WTF??? failings of Bakshi was in line delivery???? LOTR78's soundtrack being better??? you have to be kidding me! its Hogan's heroes :eek:

For a cartoon version the character development and body language was superb,

1. the behind the fire view of Gandalf and Frodo, as gandalf asks if the ring had already gotten hold of frodo
2. gandalf trying to tease and spook sam with his fingers
3. gandalf is more irritable but still caring as in the Moria scene with pippin
5. developing Aragorn's character at bree was AWESOME, "look foul but act fair" speech is whats missing in PJ's. Leaving the aragorn development to Armon Hen was a travesty
in PJ's
4. elrond was justs about perfect (although giving "this task was appointed for you frodo, if you dont find a way noone will" is better with Galadriel)
5. Galadriel was just about perfect, her happy disposition contrasts so much with the long side looks of cate blanchett. PJ would have been better just telling the audience that galadriel was tesing Frodo instead of the glances, and then he was testing her with the ring. For a cartoon, the flowing arms of Galadriel and her dancing was the best, although i prefer her to go xray too :D
4. sam is great as the comic relief and merry/pippin more serious is the way to go! the scene of sam and frodo paddling off
and sam saying "we shall see Mr frodo, we shall see", and then seeing gollum drifting after them was AWESOME
5. Gollum's "sthhhhhneakin' " scene was AWESOME
6. the voice acting is so much better; the softer British accent is so much better, with their throaty r's.......the American Morrrrrrrrrdor in PJ's is kinda freaky lol :D
7. Saruman dialogue was so much better
8. the crippled black riders, and their manners and "red" eyes and their power to draw frodo at the Ford was magnificent

there are so many nice touches in Bakshi's version it makes it so much better, PJ's is just to much action and not enough story telling for a first of a trilogy. Pj should have left half of Saruman's scenes for TTT, and shortening Armon Hen when Orc attack needds to be shorter

[Merrick Took]

Mr. Hobo, you are very smart for a homeless hobbit with no VCR!

Merrick Took

[Harad]

One interesting comparison is that both movies chose to emphasize that Isildur turned the tide of the Last Alliance by amputating the Ring from Sauron. On the TwoTowers forum there is an argument that this interpretation is not faithful to the book. I think it is, but interestingly, both filmmakers made that choice.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=50623#post50623

[Snaga]

I can't cope with the fact that Saruman is our own jolly old Saruman for the first hour or so, but then transmutes into 'Aruman' at some point for no apparent reason.

Hey I might start a thread 'what change in the Bakshi movie really £$%£s you off'!

[Harad]

VoK,
That IS embarrassing. But it goes back and forth. Sometimes 'Aruman, sometimes not. I think Bakshi wanted to distinguish the S-boys but why he couldnt stick to his idea, one way or the other, is a mystery.

[PRH]

Speaking of Bashki mess-ups, what's with the Hobbit throwing the stone down the well clearly being refered to as Pippin, with Pippin's voice but drawn as Merry?

[Merrick Took]

Actually Aruman sounds nice. And Pippin was drawn as Pippin in the dark, just so you know. Dark hair was different in that lighting. Merry had the broader nose.

Merrick Took

[lilhobo]

aruman sounds **** IMHO...dunno about merry and pippin since they were so much alike

but i remember legolas have different bows in moria, curved ends and one without

[PRH]

Just watched that part. Your right (sort of). They did draw the Pippin character tossing the stone but I just can't understand that blond hair. You've got Merry lying on his bedroll with dark hair and Pippin over the well now with blond hair -- just the opposite of what their hair colors should be. And when you get the long shot Merry has blond hair. It's just all over the place. I can't understand what possible lighting would be causing Pippin's dark hair to look bleach blond. I don't know what they were trying to do with the colors!

[Smokey]

The cartoon was interesting. I liked the new movie better. I couldn't count all the things wrong in the cartoon. It was more true to the book in some areas.

[Merrick Took]

Bakshi tried to be a bit disturbing with LOTR, and he was successful. His obvious abuse of narcotics helped to emulate the permanent effects of Frodo's wound throughout the rest of the film.


Merrick Took

[Harad]

WTF?
His obvious abuse of narcotics

I didnt notice Bakshi shooting up behind Bag End.

the permanent effects of Frodo's wound throughout the rest of the film

Frodo looked pretty on top of it even after getting skewered in Moria, so again WTF?

[PRH]

Gotta agree with Harad...don't know what you're talking about. It was obviously natcotics influenced decisions to keep switching between Aruman and Saruman and to make Pippin's hair bleach blond at the well.

[Merrick Took]

I guess since I know that small fact about Bakshi, it makes me view his work a bit differently. I dont see the oddities of LOTR78 as unintentional, I see them as either artistic interpretation (which weren't contradictory to Tokien, at least less than PJ's) or the product of decreased funds, or the infamous cut of scenes from the final product.

Small little hobbit.

[Wide Boy]

Sorry to come in late (dreadful habit of mine) but I can't miss an opportunity to bag out Ralph one more time. Variag made a post earlier to the effect that, faithful or not, Bakshi's version was just cringeworthy from start finish. Could not agree more.

There seems to be some kind of Ralph Bakshi Apologist club out there. While I most certainly acknowledge everyone's right to their own opinion, this is one that I just can't get my head around. Ralph's pedigree is appalling (Heckle & Jeckle, Fritz the Cat, the list goes on), he is an opinionated jerk who is a legend in his own lunchtime and if I could find the page where I read a long interview with him about his LOTR vs PJ's (written prior to release of the movie) I would post it because his comments might sway the Bakshi believers. Most of the purists here (without wanting to kick off the tired old NPW debate again) seem to me to have as their major gripe a perception that PJs adaptations and amendments are sheer derivative artistic arrogance by someone who doesn't have the qualifications . What Bakshi had to say was not only precisely that but he was proud of it!

You have to get down to a really fine level of analysis (dare I say "nitpicking" :D ) to find anything nice to say about it. When you take it as a whole product the Bakshi film was nothing short of abominable.

[PRH]

M Took -

I don't dispute that the man was trippin. I just (along with Harad I believe) absolutely don't see where it emulates the permanent effects of Frodo's wound throughout the rest of the film
I don't see any effects of Frodo's wound throughout the rest of the film.


Wide Boy -

What Bakshi had to say was not only precisely that but he was proud of it!


I don't quite follow - was he speaking of himself or PJ?

[Harad]

I liked the Bakshi film, but it doesnt compare with the live-action film. Also I dont care what Bakshi says about PJ. Also I dont agree with what Bakshi-bashers say nor with what the PJ-bashers say. Enuf opinions?

[Wide Boy]

PRH,

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I'll have another go.

Many people on this forum are strongly critical of PJ for the changes made. Some of these people seem to be saying that PJ's changes were less about what needed to make a movie adaptation work and more about his own arrogance. The "I can make whatever changes I like because my artistic interpretation and creativity are equal to or better than JJRT's" kind of attitude.

Some people (often the same as those referred to in the previous paragraph) back RB on the basis that he was closer to the true faith.

Bakshi's remarks in the interview suggested to me very strongly that he made changes to the story and characters (leaving aside the argument of who was closer, PJ or RB), because he thought they made the story work better. He made no apologies about what he did, no mention of mitigating factors like not having enough money, and said it in such a way as to leave me with a very strong impression of hubris and arrogance. In fact, the very things that PJ is often criticised for but which have never been apparent to me from his interviews.

In short, perhaps what I was trying to say was that I am amazed that people support RB so strongly when the interview made me believe he does the things they say that PJ does, but worse and unashamedly.

[Harad]

I suppose I separate the artist from the art. Bakshi movie stands on its own regardless of what Bakshi says. Same for PJ.

Its interesting how many things were in common for the 2 movies--something which says to me that these were "filmmaker" solutions, and that both these guys are decent filmmakers, albeit in different genres.

e.g dumping Tom Bomb, replacing Glorfindel, the Shire hedge scene, the Bree Inn scene, much of Lorien...

[PRH]

Gotcha Wide Boy. Until your explanation I was just wondering whether you meant that Bashki was blasting PJ too or if Bashki was doing the same stuff people acuse PJ of. You cleared it up though. I think one small reason that Bashki got away with it more is that the animated version didn't seem as serious as the live-action version. People expected a lot more from the live-action version.

Harad, Don't forget that PJ was first introduced to LOTR through the Bashki film, so it really gave him his first picture of Middle Earth. I believe that at least the Shire hedge scene and the Bree attack were homages or direct lifts from Bashki's intrepretation - not coincidence based on the same thought patterns.

[Harad]

PRH says:
least the Shire hedge scene and the Bree attack were homages or direct lifts

I would be very surprised if PJ paid "homage" to Bakshi. I havent heard one way or the other his feelings toward the Bakshi film. As far as "direct lifts" no director would ever admit same (unless it were a shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho") but perhaps it was unconscious. Even that I would find hard to believe, and prefer the idea that it was good cinema, both for animation and for live-action.

[Merrick Took]

I don't have an opinion on Bakshi as a person, or a film-maker, though he has made a few very unwise decisions in his career. Maybe LOTR was one of his worst mistakes. Maybe the greatest story of all time is not something that can be put to film. I am glad that it failed. I hate to see Tolkien's work in an exploitative pocket. I hope that the new films will succeed only in spreading the good news: Frodo lives. 21st century capitalism and Tolkien don't mix.


EDIT:
I guess I see why everyone hates Bakshi's version. I understand why. Thanks for mentioning that interview with Bakshi... it clears a lot of things up for me. I'm still convinced that it wasn't Bakshi's fault. He could have done a decent job. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone! Long live $PJAX$.

MT

PS Keep in mind, I saw LOTR78 in late second grade, and the next day I started FOTR. It's just how I imagine things being... like the religion you were exposed to in childhood still has a hold on you. Don't be angry.

[Harad]

21st century capitalism and Tolkien don't mix.

New Line Cinema is a prime representative of 21st capitalism, so you must hate the live-action film too.

In fact most of the 21st century is a prime representative of 21st century capitalism so...

[lilhobo]

the only bad thing about Bakshi's version is the "rape of Bilbo". Allowing Gandalf to man handle poor Bilbo at the shire and the council of Elrond, belittles the revered old hobbit

technology wasnt there, but the screenplay demonstrated their vision and artistry eg the fire shots and the high shots at bag end; the high shots with galadriel

PJ's was just "stick the camera in front and shoot the sucker, oh ok, just pan around NZ for some nice landscape shots"

[Harad]

PJ's was just "stick the camera in front and shoot the sucker, oh ok, just pan

Laughably wrong. See for just one example:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2721

[Harad]

Another odd moment in Bakshi is as Frodo gallops to the Ford of Bruinen. He and the horse fall down. No worse for wear they get up again, and ride off.

PJs filming of the chase is excellent.

And did you know that there was rotoscoping in PJ's movie, according to the credits.

Where? Rotoscoping has come a long way!

[PRH]

There was probably rotoscoping around Sting, and possibly the unmasked Nazgul, and probably many other places. Rotoscoping is really just tracing.

The horse fell down because the Nazgul was holding him back, then apparently they got loose from his grip and hopped back up. It wasn't really an exhaustion-type fall.

[Merrick Took]

There was a ton of rotoscoping. I mentioned it in the original post. TONS of rotoscoping.

MT

[PRH]

MT - we're talking about rotoscoping in PJ's version.

[Orome]

My main problem with the Jackson version compared to the RB version is that in some places where there was further diviation from the plot which left more things unexplained when no time restraints in play but hollywoodism ruled, though it was not done in Hollywood. Action thriller scenes such as the extended troll battle and some others pointed out already and yet we don't even hear about anyone saying the sword will be reforged for Aragorn among with so many other things which would not have taken more than a few seconds each and would have filled in so many gaps to those who did not read the books. I liked both versions but liked that the earlier version did take those extra few seconds here and there to give simple little explanations which filled in the gaps, though a few things like the Helms Deep thing between Legolas and Gimli was sad to have missing. If someone were first reading the book after the first version or after the second version which would have them scratching their heads the least? There is the 'huh?' factor to consider as much as the action thriller impact here.

[Harad]

Orome:

If you want there is a PJ interview here which discusses points such as the "sword reforged" issue. I think you will find insight there that most people dont think he has.

www.thescriptanalyst.com

[Orome]

Thanks Harad,

That really makes sense about the sword for the reasons on that part. As for some other stuff which I wondered about being missing that much will be included on the DVD that I look forward to seeing. 30 minutes put back in!!! That is a lot. I guess the way the movie was done did have to accommodate all the eight and nine year olds going to see the movie and then not be quiet 3 1/2 hours long and exciting enough to keep their attention is pretty understandable. Given that such things as how Glorfindel was handled (fully omitted) overall is cool all considered if bunches of other stuff being put back in. Now if only I had a DVD player! *sniff, sniff* lol Guess it will be time to get one soon. I appreciate the link. It helps.

[PRH]

I guess the way the movie was done did have to accommodate all the eight and nine year olds

I hope not. This was a PG-13.


I should point out, on the topic of the sword reforged, that Bashki omitted the reforging in his version -- very curious considering the broken sword was seen at Bree and the Council of Elrond. After Rivendell, Aragorn just starts carrying an intact sword around.

[aragil]

I think I'm going to have to defend Bakshi while you're saying he did a boo-boo. My recollection of Rivendell was that there was a scene of Aragorn watching an Elven Smith hammer away at Narsil, there re-forging it. Or did I only dream it ....?

[Harad]

A dream Aragil...I watched it moments ago and unless I was dreaming there was not reforging. There was a nice shot of Aragorn throwing the two pieces of Narsil on the Council table, but alas, that's all.

I noticed an interesting thing in subtitles of the chase to the Fords of Bruinen. Of course the subtitles are not necessarily authoritative, ie. they are done by somebody else and might not get the script right--but as Frodo was being chased and the Nazgul were threatening (and insulting) him, a voice cried out "Gandalf" and another subtitle said: Woman's voice "Go back." Sounds like Arwen to me.

[PRH]

I also watched all of the Rivendell stuff last night to confirm. No reforging.

That "woman's voice" was probably Frodo, involved in a telepathic shouting match. As you know, Arwen is nowhere in the Bashki movie and having this as some sort of 'nod' would be pretty odd, even for Bashki.

[Harad]

I have no doubt that Bakshi could "nod" 23 years into the future. I think youre right that its Frodo. Probably also Frodo saying "Gandalf" as in "I wish Gandalf was here getting his butt kicked instead of me."

[PRH]

Isn't it funny how omitting Arwen and the reforging of Narsil goes virtually unnoticed but changing Arwen somewhat and moving the reforging is unconscionable.

[Merrick Took]

Isn't it funny how omitting something inconsequential to the entire plot allows you to still imagine that it happened, but tampering with things lets you r--------EDIT--------- :

I can see why everyone hates LOTR78. Really I can. I am a hobbit that can easily equivocate. And right now I am prepared to argue the side that needs some help. FOTR was excellent. It is the best film I have ever seen and probably the best that I will ever see, unless ROTK is handled better than I picture it being handled. But that doesn't mean I have to belittle the excellent work of Ralph Bakshi. He attempted to due the best story ever told full justice, but like Bilbo, his luck and money ran out. I am surprised that it was as good as it was, considering what he had to go through to get it that far. Jackson took a great deal many things and impressions from LOTR78, and you really can't dispute that. Bakshi attempted to stay as close as possible to the original dialogue and scenes, and I think we have to give him credit for doing several things much better than anyone else has, or ever will.

MT

P.S. Say what you want. Don't forget to ignore what you know to be true.

[PRH]

scene 1-Bag End:

Gandalf: "This is the One Ring"

scene 2-Council of Elrond:

Frodo: "I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way."

scene 3- 8 hours of sprawling landscape shots.

scene 4- Sammath Naur:

Gollum: "chomp"

Frodo: "ow!"

Gollum falls into the fire.

credits roll.


Wow! How true to Tolkien! Sure they left a bit of the details out but I'm certainly free to imagine they happened!

[Harad]

but tampering with things lets you rape Tolkien's work?

Hunh?

Maybe I am missing something here, but the defender of Bakshi is crying "rape"?

Arwen is a composite character. She replaces a character that is so out-of-place that even your revered Bakshi replaced him.

What snapped?

[Merrick Took]

I can see why everyone hates LOTR78. Really I can. I am a hobbit that can easily equivocate. And right now I am prepared to argue the side that needs some help. FOTR was excellent. It is the best film I have ever seen and probably the best that I will ever see, unless ROTK is handled better than I picture it being handled. But that doesn't mean I have to belittle the excellent work of Ralph Bakshi. He attempted to due the best story ever told full justice, but like Bilbo, his luck and money ran out. I am surprised that it was as good as it was, considering what he had to go through to get it that far. Jackson took a great deal many things and impressions from LOTR78, and you really can't dispute that. Bakshi attempted to stay as close as possible to the original dialogue and scenes, and I think we have to give him credit for doing several things much better than anyone else has, or ever will.

MT

P.S. Say what you want. Don't forget to ignore what you know to be true.

[Harad]

MT:

Your posts are somewhere in the vacuum of Deep Space. They ignore what has been posted before. Several people myself included have said they liked the Bakshi version. Try reading for comprehension next time.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Merrick Took
Isn't it funny how omitting something inconsequential to the entire plot allows you to still imagine that it happened, but tampering with things lets you r--------EDIT--------- :


Sure, take out the impetus for followup posts. That "1,2,....,You" part was some of your best work.

[Merrick Took]

Does anyone remember the scene where Aragorn is kneeling over a dead Boromir, and he looks up at Legolas and Gimli?

Does his facial expression stand out to anyone else as superb?

MT
(Will leave the board if he gets another insult)

[Harad]

Its very tempting...
But yes that was a nice expression. Can't compare of course with the expressions of the well-acted live action version.

[greypilgrim]

This Bashki movie, is this the same movie as Warner Bros released? There are two parts, The Lord of the Rings, and The Return of the King? i hope this is the movie, because I'm about to make a comment on it.

The best part was when Gandalf rushes to Helm's deep, with a score of riders at his back, and starts slashing orcs from atop Shadowfax. This clip is THE COOLEST, it has TWO slo-motion shots of orcs getting slashed by Gandalf, and they are falling forward (slowly) with A WHOLE LOTTA BLOOD flying from their bodies, making nasty dying gurgling horiffic noises as they die.AWESOME!!!

The fight in the Tomb of Balin was awesome, not as good as how P.J. did it (with the cavetroll), but accurate to the T from the book.
An orc-chieftian deflects a blow from Boromir, ducks a strike from Aragorn, and thrusts his spear at Frodo. Perfect! and done in slo-mo, too!

How can anybody knock a cartoon from the 70's, man? Sometimes I wonder ....nevermind. It was sweet.
P.J. knocking is OK, though, because he can use NO EXCUSES for anything. 300 million dollars on the Trilogy, he'd better make the "Holy Grail" of box office-hits, as he puts it!

[Harad]

The Bakshi "cartoon" was a one-parter with no ending. The ROTK was independently made. I never saw it. Wasnt it Rankin-Bass. I disliked their Hobbit, so never watched ROTK. Anybody like ROTK?

[baraka]

I disliked their Hobbit,

Why did you diskliked ther Hobbit? Elves looks like pretty weird, but i thought that Gollum was brilliant!:cool:

For a kid movie, it think it was pretty good. I have ROTK but i have never watched it, don´t know why?

[PRH]

Rankin/Bass ROTK is just a joke. It's almost good if you treat it as kitsch. Actually, the siege of Gondor is okay, but other than that, it's just a total joke.

[Harad]

I liked the voice of Smaug..thats about it. The other voices and especially the music, sucked. The animation was bad. Enuf?

[PRH]

I basically like Rankin/Bass's Hobbit. It's more a kid's book and thus works well as a kiddie cartoon. The animation was somewhat lame, but not that bad.

I just thought the same formula didn't work for ROTK.

[aragil]

From Rankin/Bass RotK I liked the song 'Where there's a whip (whoo-psh!), there's a way' and little else. Funny thing is, I had the recordbook version (remember those?) when I was about 3 years old. I had of course forgotten that by the time I read the actual books, but technically Rankin/Bass was my first exposure to Middle-Earth. I still get tinglies on my spine when I read 'Rohan had come at last', which is the only line I remember from the recordbook.

[PRH]

I think you have the same sentiments I do about Rankin/Bass's Hobbit. I never really saw it when I was young (stupid lack of VCRs) but I played that recordbook until the grooves wore through to the other side. Best line: "Blast it! Nuttin' but mutton to eat!"

[Harad]

Finally the explanation for your unique slants. Minds blasted in youth by repeated playings of Rankin-Bass lines.

[PRH]

replace 'blasted' with 'enriched' and you're on to something.

[Merrick Took]

Similarly, it was the Bakshi film that inspired me to read LOTR as a wee little second grade hobbit (and a Hobbit fan). For me, those are the voices of Middle-Earth.

MT

[Ged]

Apologies for posting when I haven't had time to read all this thread. Hope this point hasn't been made before.

I've read so many comments comparing the Bakshi film favourably with the PJ version. I strongly suspected that people who prefer the Bakshi version probably saw it in childhood or something. Well, at the weekend my kids rented it out of the video store. Though there were some bits they quite liked, on the whole they were appalled! They just didn't feel (and I agree with them) that a cartoon can possibly do justice to or capture the mythic feeling of the great story that is LoTR.

It was a little like watching a cross between Scooby Doo and The Magnificent Seven!

Also, for those who criticise PJ for missing bits out, what about Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas meeting Eomer and the Riders of Rohan? It just wasn't there! Because of this, when they all eventually got to Edoras nobody knew anybody and all the subsequent events were nonsense.

So, a reasonably entertaining (half) children's interpretation, but please let's not try to suggets it is any way comparable or superior to the worthy effort made by Peter Jackson.

[Harad]

I agree with the "memory" aspect of people's preferences. In 1978, PJs version could NOT have been made, so Bakshi deserves some credit for the attempt. By the time of the last third of the Bakshi version, IMO, the financial plug was pulled, so things became very sketchy. Scenes like A,G,&L meeting Eomer were gone of course. Even more "spectacular," Treebeard was totally abandoned after meeting M&P (as were M&P).

[aragil]

In defense of Bakshi, I believe that Eomer was made into a composite of Book Eomer and Book Erkenbrand. As near as I can figure it, Bakshi had Eomer in charge of the bulk of the Riders of Rohan, and he had not yet returned to Edoras since taking care of Ugluk and co. There is the final discussion between Gandalf and Theoden at Edoras:
Theoden: 'My sister-daughter, Eowyn. My only loyal kin since her brother has ... disobeyed my commands.'
Gandalf: 'Wormtongue's commands, Theoden. If Eomer had not defied him your cause might be already lost.'
Theoden: 'Tell me, Gandalf, what I must do now.'
Gandalf: 'We cannot wait here for Saruman's attack. Every man that can ride must be sent immediately to the old fortress of Helm's Deep. When Saruman learns that we have gone there, and he will, we will have the Riders of Rohan. I will find Eomer and his riders.'
When Gandalf finally returns to rescue Theoden and Aragorn, he comes with Eomer and the Riders rather than with Erkenbrand and infantry, as in the books. Therefore, for the internal consistency of Bakshi's movie Eomer could not have been at Edoras, nor should he have met with the three hunter's. I guess PJ wasn't the only one to tweak the events of the book to suit his own needs.

[Harad]

You've defended the minor omission, and ignored the larger one of Treebeard, Merry, and Pippin. The Ents were instrumental in the Helm's Deep victory through their herding of the Huorns, so if the Bakshi story were to be continued, their role would have been significantly changed as well.

[aragil]

No point in defending the larger omission- it's as you say, ran out of money. Bakshi definitely had thought about it, otherwise I'm sure he would have let the 3 hunters find Merry and Pippin, rather than Treebeard. Similarly, I'm sure he thought that he'd get Frodo and Sam to Mt. Doom, and there have Gollum bite the finger, etc.