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

rob kilbride · Dec 25, 2001

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: The wraiths physically fighting Aragorn instead of being ghostlike in the book and animated version; Arwen carrying Frodo to the Ford and doing the magic; The end sequence when Frodo is separated from the fellowship. The Galadriel sequence.
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 · Dec 25, 2001

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 · Dec 25, 2001

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 · Dec 25, 2001

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 · Dec 25, 2001

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.

Tino · Dec 25, 2001

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 · Dec 25, 2001

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

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.

Click to expand...

Rob Gillespie · Dec 25, 2001

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 · Dec 25, 2001

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

Rob

Tino · Dec 25, 2001

Rob
I'm a bit curious as to why you merged my thread with this one since they are about two different films, adressing different questions, and plus I didn't want to steer this one off course?
I thought it was a different enough subject to warrant a new thread instead of getting lost in this one.
Oh well...Never mind. Admins. know best I suppose.

Michael Moulton · Dec 25, 2001

Rob, I also have to question the merging. This is the Official LOTR: FOTR discussion thread. Discussing Bakshi's version here is going to create more confusion than it solves.

Rob Gillespie · Dec 25, 2001

Yup, you're right chaps. Ahh the joys of the VBulletin 'Split Thread' option

Jeff Kleist · Dec 25, 2001

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?

No, the DVD is not where it counts in the end. If the prints look like crap, they look like crap. LOTR had some nice processing done to it, but 2 of the 3 times I've seen it there has been large amounts of grain on the print, very very annoying. And yes, with very few exceptions, Super35 originated DVDs look worse than their anamorphic counterparts (The Rock and Se7en are exceptions)

No matter what, Super35 was forged right along with The Ring in Mt. Doom

Click to expand...

Seth Paxton · Dec 25, 2001

Watching the DVD recently I was reminded of how much I liked a lot of what was done with RB's version. In some ways I think PJ could have borrowed some of those ideas. I'd say it's perhaps fair to say that for whatever flaws it had, the "original" did capture some of the "feel" much better.

The biggest problem to me was how quickly it just jumped along at times. I like how he handled Moria though, moreso than PJ did up to the point where G and Frodo have the discussion while lost at the 3 hallways. I wish PJ had pulled off that same feel for the first bit of Moria.

I thought Sean Bean was great but I liked the image of Boromir in the animated version. Hard to say though, they are definately different interpretations of the same character.

Dave Smith · Dec 25, 2001

I really dislike the Bakshi version. I really like Jackson's

However, reading the sarcastic review linked to above, it's surprising how many of the writer's complaints are relevant to the live-action movie too.
- The "gratuitous lightshow" of the wizard duel. Fair enough, the live-action isn't a light show, but it's definitely gratuitous...
- The Council of Elrond being short, and also involving lots of raised voices and people talking at once;
- The "gratuitous swordplay" with the Watcher in the water;
- The Balrog, with the quote from Tolkien... "The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all..."
Just playing Devil's Advocate

Ben Motley · Dec 26, 2001

[RANT]
ROTOSCOPING KICKS ASS!

Okay? Please... alright, no, I won't ask you to "get over it", but as a tool, it works, in my opinion. Bakshis films have character to them, and his use of rotoscoping is just one of the devices he used to define that character. I am so sick of people dismissing Bakshi's use of it, and Bakshi's films in general, as a "gimmick" or "trick". Hey, newsflash, all of filmic history is trickery! As a kid, I thought the use of live photography manipulated into something new was extremely interesting, and as Bakshi used it, extremely creepy. The rotoscoping scenes in Wizards are classic, and get the message of the horrors of war across quite nicely, for those of us who can think outside the box anyway. The Ringwraiths? Holy shit, I had nightmares about them. They would not have been half as frightening had Bakshi not used the effect he did. You want straight animation with your horror fantasy films? Try Disney's Black Cauldron. There you go, no rotoscoping. Sucks, don't it? Don't get me wrong, I liked Black Cauldron, but that has more to do with the fact that I read the Prydain books, and not because it's a good film, because it quite frankly really isn't.
[/RANT]
Thank you, thank you one and all for letting me get that off my chest. I hope I have not offended, and ask only that you try to at least look at it from my point of view, but not necessarilly accept it. Just accept that to some people rotoscoping is not the bane of humankinds existence that some people like to make it out to be.

Bakshi kicks ass. Watch Fritz the Cat!

Bill McA · Dec 26, 2001

I have to agree regarding what Ben said about rotoscoping.
I have always loved the rotoscoping in Bakshi's films and have always thought that the technique was very effective...not 'cheap and lazy' at all!
And the technique is not limited to Bakshi's films either, it has been used in many other animated films such as Heavy Metal and others.
Watch more Bakshi films!!!

Marvin Richardson · Dec 26, 2001

The Ringwraiths in Bakshi's version were scary? You still have nightmares about them? When I watched that horrible piece of garbage I went back and forth between laughing uproariously and cringing at just how bad everything about it was. The directing, the voice acting, the incredibly over-the-top music (even worse than John Williams' Harry Potter), the horrible characterizations of Sam and all the rest of the hobbits, Aruman...I mean Saruman's hilarious voice...well, I could go on, but what's the point. The rotoscoping belonged in this movie, though, as it looks cheap and its in a cheap movie. I'm glad someone likes the movie, but I think it is one of the worst animated movies ever made.

Ben Motley · Dec 26, 2001

The Ringwraiths? Holy shit, I had nightmares about them.

Had Marvin, had. I don't have nightmares still about them, no. You're obviously entitled to your opinion on the film, but if that wasn't just a load of excessive flamebait, I don't know what is.
Thanks for the backup Bill.

Click to expand...

Thomas Johnsen · Dec 26, 2001

Please ignore this post.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

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

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Screenwriter

Taken As Ballast

Taken As Ballast

Taken As Ballast

Stunt Coordinator

Stunt Coordinator

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Auditioning

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Similar Threads

Forum statistics