MichaelBA

The orcs were rotoscoped. I rather liked them. But the Balrog was bad. I think the worst bits were many of those animated by traditional means. The Balrog, Treebeard, Gollum.

He's got the bit between his teeth... all right!

DavidPla

Personally, I thought the ONLY redeemable thing about the movie was Gollum. Everything else was absolutely terrible, IMO.

Jon Bell

I like most of the traditional animation. Gandalf is the best drawn character-- even with the ballerina thing he does when he recites the ring poem. I think his facial expressions are quite good. I also like the way that the hobbits are drawn, except for Sam, who looks and acts mentally challenged.

One thing that I always find strange is that the characters seem to move too much-- Sam is always pacing around or kicking stones, horses walk around in circles and kick the ground-- why didn't they spend that time animating more interesting things?

There's one scene that I always loved (I won't bother with spoiler tags--if you're reading this thread, you know the story). When Gandalf falls off the bridge of Khazad-Dum, Aragorn takes a flying leap to try and save him, and just misses. I must have rewound that scene twenty times.

Since this was the only LOTR movie in existence for 23 years, I guess I had to find something good about it to hang on to.

I find Bakshi's comments strange ("I probably made a billion mistakes..."). Why would you go into a project like this with such a negative attitude. Or, maybe over time, he just realized that he couldn't do the project justice, and resigned himself to just do what he could with the resources he had.

MichaelBA

Jon, you point out some neat things in the Bakshi. I also really like the vibrancy he gave Gandalf. That little dance he did WAS cool!

But I still think that some other characters looked lumpy and sloppy.

The opening with Sauron forging the Ring was pretty good, though.

Bakshi made that "billion mistakes" comment in 2001, so it definitely was in retrospect. Although, perhaps it was also expressing some doubt that Jackson could pull it off.

It's funny that even though Tolkien himself thought the book unfilmable, both the animated versions from the 70s and Jackson's live action films do work, just as pure pieces of cinema. Some people revile the Bakshi or the Rankin-Bass, but there's nothing about them, whatever their weaknesses, that demonstrates Tolkien's basic story couldn't be translated to film.

He's got the bit between his teeth... all right!

Lars_J

I'm not so sure... There are a lot of missing plot-points in Bakshi's film that I think us readers tend to fill in. (either conscious;y or subconsciously)

A few examples:
- When Gandalf & Frodo throw the ring in the fire, do they ever look at the ring to verify it is the one ring? (the letters on the ring)
- At the Council of Elrond, is it ever spelt out exactly what the plan is? (to destroy the ring)

For someone who has never read the books, omissions like that tend to be confusing.

This is the reason I like to call Bakshi's film "Tolkiens Greatest Hits" - Bits and pieces are very faithful to the text, but much of the glue is missing.

And of course, the TTT sections of the film are a complete abomination, like he just gave up.

- Lars

MichaelBA

I just meant that whereas Tolkien thought his own book so un-filmable that he didn't even protect the rights to it, both the animated and live action versions show that the book is cinematically possible.

He's got the bit between his teeth... all right!

Jon Bell

Lars, I think you make a great point about filling the gaps in. I have watched this movie with non-readers, and that "WTF" expression never left their faces.

It is interesting that there are scenes that have dialog directly from the book on one hand, then HUGE gaps that you have to fill in, on the other.

Michael, As far as the characters looking lumpy or sloppy, if you mean the design, I disagree. I like the rough look that they gave Aragorn (except for his dress)-- he looks foul, but feels fair (John Hurt's voice is great). The hobbits are plain looking, but not ugly (except for Sam). I like the bright, clean look of the elves (esp. Galadriel). I won't argue that the animation can be jarring, so if that's what you meant, I think I know what you're talking about.

If I ever try LSD, I'm putting this movie on while I'm tripping.

MichaelBA

John Hurt IS great!

But Treebeard and Gollum and the Balrog don't look good, IMO. Almost like they were rushed.

I like the Hobbits, and even ugly Sam. I like Bakshi's Sam more than Jackson's. At least he's not friggin' WEEPING all the time.

About the "gaps" from book to film, I think we fill them in even with Jackson's trilogy, despite its great length overall.

But I rather more appreciated that Bakshi left episodes out than attempted to add material not in the original Tolkien, like Jackson did.

He's got the bit between his teeth... all right!

DavidPla

BLASPHEMY!!!!!

MichaelBA

I confess. But... I do not repent!

He's got the bit between his teeth... all right!

DavidPla

Sam was my favourite character from the books and when I saw Bakshi's LOTR for the first time, I was absolutely appalled by the treatment of Sam. I think probably that's why I came to dislike the film so much. Nothing about the film really rubbed me the wrong way but Sam... oh boy! To me, Jackson's version captured Sam EXACTLY like the books and it made me remember why he was my favorite character when I first read them. I even prefer the Rankin/Bass Sam over the Bakshi one. I cannot stress enough how much I loathe Bakshi's Sam. They say a picture speaks a thousand words...



(The hideous creature in the middle is Sam! ARGH!!!)

http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/tolkien/

MichaelBA

Amazing link to Bakshi images, David!

I think it really shows that Bakshi had an excellent eye (no pun intended).

But some things aren't good. Like Gollum:



But there was a 1980 calendar using images