The Lord Of The Rings (Bakshi)

rob kilbride · 12-25-2001, 01:43 AM

I became a fan of LOTR through the 1978 animated version and have not read the book. I loved the new movie and today I consulted a friends copy of FOTR expecting to find the new movie to be truer to the original. However I seem to have found the contrary. I checked most of the points where the stories differ in the two films and each time the animated version seemed more accurate:

Spoiler:

All this has been drastically changed from the book and weren't in the animated film. I thought one of the main reasons the fans of the book didn't often like the animated version was because of differences between the movie and the book. But I looked at theonering.net and it has a very high member rating. I think both movies are great and I don't think a live action movie replaces an animated movie or vice versa. I think both are well worth while. I guess it confounds me that the original was a flop while the new one seems to be a ringing success. I'd really like to know what fans of the book have to say on this matter. So I guess my main point is that the first film need some love too! I like the new score but I knew it could never top Rosenman's. It was always one of my favorites. It as one of my few orchestral albums I had before I started buying classical cd's. Loved the new film though and am so glad I only have to wait till next year for the sequel unlike Star Wars where we have to wait 3 years! Your thoughts please.

Jeff Kleist · 12-25-2001, 01:51 AM

Read the book, all the way through, and then watch both movies again. You'll see time and time again Bakshi blasphemes were Jackson merely bends

Every change Jackson made had a purpose that was obvious to me (even if I didn't like some of them). Bakshi seemed more intent on his rotoscoping. Bad bad flick, whose existance I don't usually recognize

Same goes for the Rankin-Bass travesties

rob kilbride · 12-25-2001, 02:10 AM

Give me an example please. As I stated earlier I checked most of the differences that I thought were major between the two films and each time the book indicated the animated was more accurate. I'm not saying your wrong but I probably won't have time to read the books all the way through anytime soon and when I do I will read the Hobbit first.

Artur Meinild · 12-25-2001, 04:23 AM

Rob K, the animated version is not true to the book, due to the fact that they can't even get the characters names right!

And Jeff, to comment on your "official film stock of Mordor" statement, I think PJ used super-35 for a reason. My guess is he needed the greater field depth because of the forced perspective shots, and also the flares often involved when using anamorphic lenses would look totally silly in this movie.
Besides, do you really think that a super-35 DVD transfer will look worse than a scope transfer? You're right super-35 gives some problems at the cinema, but hey, isn't it the DVD that really counts?

Tino · 12-25-2001, 07:07 AM

I too would like to read examples of why the animated version is considered a "travesty" by some. Be specific without spoilers of course for those of us who haven't read the books.

I loved the animated version and watched some of it again recently and was surprised at how similar it was to FOTR, with many scenes in both films.

When I saw it in theaters in its original run, I remember sellout crowds and enthusiatic responses.

So I ask again, what exactly, other than a dislike for its animation style, was wrong with it?

Thanks

EDIT I have started a new thread regarding Bakshi's version and the questions I, and Rob, have asked above instead of steering this thread off course. Check it out.

**HTF Ads**

Tino · 12-25-2001, 07:29 AM

I have always enjoyed Ralph Bakshi's The Lord Of The Rings and am surprised at how disliked it is by some fans of the books. I haven't read the books (yet) but would like to hear from fans of the novels what exactly is wrong with it and why they don't like it. I re-watched some of the animated version recently and was surprised at how many scenes it shares with FOTR.

I loved the new version but was surprised to read comments by some fans that they really have no love for Bakshi's version. Why?

I know by todays standards, the animation, especially the rotoscoping, is very crude, but I always thought it was a pretty faithful adaption of The Fellowship Of The Ring and part of The Two Towers with a great score by Leonard Rosenman I might add. I even own the Fotonovel!

Without spoiling the rest of the story for those of us that haven't read the book, I'd like to hear from the fans of the book as to what exactly Mr. Bakshi did wrong in their eyes.

So..haters and lovers of this film, speak up! Thanks

Andy Sheets · 12-25-2001, 07:55 AM

As I recall, my main problems with the animated film were that

1. It looked absolutely horrible. Bakshi's rotoscoping just doesn't look good at all (I didn't like it in Wizards either). I assume he was going for an otherworldly look but I just don't think it worked.

2. The depiction of Sam...they take this humble character who has this inner strength and they just made him a farging idiot. I really want to kill Sam everytime I see the cartoon. I remember reading in the Entertainment Weekly article a quote from Sean Astin in which he said that he had to work with Jackson to make Sam a bit stronger so he wasn't crying all the time like in the Bakshi version. I had to nod my head emphatically because I knew exactly what he was talking about

3. And the overall sketchiness of the plot. It starts out alright albeit lacking in energy, but then it gets increasing incoherent as the story continues. So by the end it's not just boring, but I no longer know how I even got to that point to begin with. Even after I read the book I had trouble following the plot.

And for humor purposes, I like this review of the cartoon from the Tolkien Sarcasm page

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

Quote:

I especially missed Merry and Pippin fighting against the orcs at Amon Hen...but I thought that when they drew the orcs from Frodo it showed about the same thing.

But they did fight orcs. After leading the orcs away from Frodo, they're facing down the orcs coming after them until Boromir charges in, at which point they rally behind him and start stabbing away at the orcs. It's when Boromir is shot that they become so stunned that they stop fighting (btw, I quite like the way that the film draws Merry, Pippin, and Boromir together throughout the story), but when they try again the orcs overcome them easily. The book works differently but I think the film does a good job of showing that they are getting tougher but not going overboard and stretching their credibility as fighters with the audience.

Rob Gillespie · 12-25-2001, 08:03 AM

It's a sloppy, lazy piece of work, though it still holds some appeal for me.

I could recite a lot of problems with the film, but this page does it in a more humorous way than I would attempt.

Note the point about Saruman being called 'Aruman' throughout much of the film. Oddly (or not oddly as the case may be) the DVD subtitles get the names right where Baskshi got it wrong.

Rob Gillespie · 12-25-2001, 08:21 AM

Admin note: A couple of threads concerning the animated LOTR film have been merged with this one.

Rob