The Lord Of The Rings (Bakshi) (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

Well, I'll be in the minority here and say that I do think there are worthwhile moments in this film. I like his handling of Bree and the journey from Bree to Rivendell. I also liked the way he handled Boromir's death. While it isn't a great movie by any means, it was my introduction to LotR, and is what got me to read the books.

As for Bakshi, it is at least nice to have an animator that wasn't apeing Disney and try something different, even if it didn't work half the time. I never saw what the big deal was with Wizards. It never did anything for me. The only movie of his that I thought was great was American Pop. Just the unconventional subject matter felt somewhat daring.

Jason

 

[Craig S]

Oh, I forgot one more ridiculous character design from Bakshi - Treebeard. Looks like he took Warner's Tazmanian Devil, flattened his nose, and stuck twigs in him. Just horrible.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Well, I actually liked the Bakshi version, although I don't like the way it ended at Helm's Deep. Too bad he never attempted t "finish" the film. I found it in the $5.88 bin at Wal-Mart this past weekend, although I didn't buy it then, I just might get it tonight.

 

[Nick_Scott]

Well, I actually liked the Bakshi version

I thought it was pretty good too.

And yes, I think the new live-action version is much, much better.

Both are fairly accurate to the book, and take liberties when needed to preserve pacing, and flow, etc. Things like Sarumon vs Arumon are pretty trivial. The story itself was mostly intact.

I think the main issue is that people simply don't like the style of animation itself. Rotoscoping was an experimental technique. Usually, its done in a way thats NOT obvious. The live-action version also used lots of Rotoscoping, but you would never know it.

But making a whole movie that way can be a little annoying.

Much like watching Tron: Is the rotoscoping a distraction? Or does it add to the uniqueness of the film?

Well, its a matter of preference.

Nick

 

[Craig S]

When's the last time you guys saw Bakshi's version? I had fonder thoughts of it myself until seeing it again yesterday. Now all I can think is "It burns! It burns!"

 

[Guy_K]

How's the animated version of THE HOBBIT? I'm thinking of buying that one as a companion to the live action LOTR.

 

[nolesrule]

How's the animated version of THE HOBBIT? I'm thinking of buying that one as a companion to the live action LOTR.

It's not bad. I'd say it was a pretty good effort.

 

[Craig S]

I agree with Joe. RB's The Hobbit is definitely aimed at children, and some of the songs are cloying, but it's a pretty close adaptation of the book.
However, if Jackson gets to do The Hobbit down the road, watch out!

 

[TheLongshot]

Too bad he never attempted t "finish" the film.

My understanding is that he only had the rights to FotR and TTT, while Rankin-Bass had the rights to The Hobbit and RotK.

Jason

 

[Ricardo C]

but it's a pretty close adaptation of the book.

I agree, except for Thranduil looking like the Keebler elf from hell :p)

 

[Kami]

Bakshi's LOTR actually made me fall asleep, and I am a LOTR nut. I'll admit I was tired but only 3 movies have ever put me to actual SLEEP.

I will probably give it another go someday, but what I do remember was crap for lack of a better word.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I actually watched it right before FOTR came out in 2001. I plan to buy it at Wal-Mart and watch it again. I just think it would be nice to have in my collection just for collection's sake.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I read the book several times in college and just loved it.

I was getting excited about PJ's films in 2001. In December of 2001, I rented Bakshi's LOTR to get it out of my system.

Terrible. There was just no emotion in it. I didn't care about the characters (even though I knew I should). Everything and everyone was ugly. Aragorn was not only native American for some reason, but also but-ugly and wearing a skirt. Sam was even worse, some kind of walking turd. Yuck.

What was worse for me was that certain elements were adapted CLOSER to the book than what I knew PJ's version would be doing, yet I felt nothing. Frodo facing the Wraiths at the ford was close to the book, yet I just found it a boring scene.

This started to get me scared about PJ's version. I was worrying that maybe the story just didn't work for me anymore (because I hadn't read the book in a couple of years), and that I would wind up bored and feeling nothing when I went to see FOTR a few weeks after that.

My worries were quickly put to rest within the first 15 minutes of FOTR. Re-reading the books again, I find that the story resonates as strong as ever.

Sure PJ's version deviates from the book at times more than Bakshi's version. But PJ's version captures the emotion, wonder, spirit, and feel of the books. Bakshi's version manages to be a more literal translation in some ways, but it loses it's sole. I always think about that when people here bitch about changes made from the books in PJ's films, and how if only certain things were more like the book it would have to be an improvement, right? Wrong. It could be better, but that is not a guarantee. It COULD also be worse if it is done in a crappy way like Bakshi did. Many of the complaints about the Harry Potter films are that in trying to cram so much stuff from the book into the film version and not adapting/changing things to work better as a film, that something (the "magic" or "heart" of the book) is lost.

As much as I love the book (LOTR), I believe it is POSSIBLE to do a literal translation/adaptation that would wind up stinking (bad acting, bad design, bad music, bad pacing, bad action scenes, ect...). Of course it could also be wonderful if done right, but just being a completely "faithful" to the novel story-wise will not guarantee a good film. There is so much more that makes a good film good. PJ seems to know about this. I don't think Bakshi does.

 

[Craig S]

Sean, you hit the nail on the head. I agree 100%.

 

[Sean Bryan]

My understanding is that he only had the rights to FotR and TTT, while Rankin-Bass had the rights to The Hobbit and RotK.

No, this isn't the case. All along Bakshi was going to do two films. The plug was plulled on doing the second film. I'm not sure of the specifics, but it was not do to not having the film rights.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Basically, there wasn't enough money to do all of it at the same time--so Bakshi figured he'd just make the first half, wait for the receipts to roll in, and finish the rest of it then.

Except the reciepts never rolled in.

 

[ChuckSolo]

One must remember, that when Bakshi did his version, CGI and other advanced animation technology didn't exist. And I would make the argument that only the fact that those techniques exist today make the Peter Jackson films possible. Making the feature mostly in "cartoon" mode was probably the ONLY way his movie would have worked back then. I can imagine someone trying to do a live action version of LOTR back then. The make-up and effects would have been no better than those on old TV shows like "Lost in Space" and "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea." Bakshi did the best he could with what he had to work with, and overall, I think it worked. You CANNOT compare that film to the current Peter Jackson film in any shape, way or form. To do so, is a completely UNFAIR comparison.

 

[Robert Anthony]

No, it's not.

The animation isn't what throws me--although the rotoscope IS sloppy. It's like I said earlier in this thread--he completely missed the tone and the POINT of the books, and that's very blatantly obvious in his handling of the Sam/Frodo dynamic.

The tone, the pacing and the feel of his movie is just very very wrong. CGI and Models vs Animation and Rotoscope really has nothing to do with it. There are animated movies that have more feeling and meaning to them than most live action movies (Iron Giant, Princess Mononoke)--so the fact that Jackson did his live action and Bakshi did his animated really doesn't hold much weight. The execution is what people have a problem with, and Bakshi didn't execute in his medium very well.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I beg to differ Mark, you are comparing apples and oranges. When did you first watch the Bakshi version?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

The problem isn't that it's animated so much as the style. The Hobbit was fine animated (thought it does have fewer human characters).