Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by rob kilbride, Dec 25, 2001.
I like them both. I don't mind the rotoscoping. What I do mind is Bakshi's on-the-cheap reuse of THE SAME rotoscoping shots over and over again (a problem that also plagues Wizards, a film that I love). I wish that a) he had been given a budget about twice as big and b) he would have been allowed to finish the thing. Jackson called it completely right by insisting on doing the whole thing at once.
Re-animator kicks ass Marvin. Anyone who doesn't like it is the sicko, in my book . Sorry I took your post so defensively, but you have an obvious deep-seated, passionate hatred of Bakshi's LOTR, which came across as rather antagonistic. Language such as "horrible piece of garbage", "laughing uproariously and cringing", and the sarcasm of "Aruman...I mean Saruman's" is what set me off.
Jeff, you make it sound like the quality of the theatrical presentation has something to do with the quality on the DVD!!!
OK, I know I'm drifting a little of topic here, maybe we should take this discussion to the Official thread instead?
If New Line are really cool, they make the transfer off the negative, and I don't see why the super-35 negative is more grainy than a flat 35mm negative.
The theatrical presentation is first and foremost in many director's minds on a film. Isn't our forum about preserving the theatrical experience?
With Super 35 they letterbox out a 2.35:1 area of the negative and blow that up. With anamorphic, they use the entire 35mm frame. It's like anamorphic and non-anamorphic DVDs. The fact that the picture has been blown up leads to the magnification of grain, and especially with all these theaters who have their bulbs turned down the grain is horriffic.
When you start with less resolution, the DVD will end up looking worse. Does a movie shot on 16mm look as good as one shot on 35mm on DVD? Nope. Same deal with Super35 95% of the time
Finally got to see Jackson's LOTR this week. While it was great, I thought there was an excessive amount of "fuzziness", or I guess it's what you all are talking about, grain. I have no idea what they projected, 35 or Super 35, but the images were incredibly "soft", especially during the bright daylight scenes as Gandalf is traveling into town. I hope you've got something there Keith, and I hope what I saw was a Super 35 projection, because I'd sure like to see a crisper LOTR.
Now, back to Bakshi's LOTR. I just got done watching the dvd for the first time. It's been since I was a kid that I last saw the film. I find that I still like it, and I still think the wraiths are scary, but I don't anticipate having any nightmares tonight . What I would like to address is this business about Aruman. It turns out that only Gandalf and the hobbits call Saruman Aruman. During the council, both the narrator and Elrond distinctly say Saruman, as does Gimli later in the film. And, sure enough, in the end credits he is in fact called Saruman. I began to wonder if maybe wizards and hobbits dropped the S as rule of regional or racial dialect. But then, accepting that, that leaves us to wonder why they don't drop the S in Sauron. In any event, I know I'm giving Bakshi license where it probably isn't deserved, as the popular outcry against the film on this very point by Tolkien readers surely reveals that Tolkien himself never expressed this difference in dialect. However, I do plan to read FOTR soon (no, I never have ), and I'll be keeping my eyes open for any evidence of such a condition.
I just wanted to point out that the production does in fact recognize Saruman's original spelling, and popularly agreed upon pronuciation, except in the case of the hobbits and Gandalf. So there. :p)
Now I gotta go out and buy American Pop. So far this month, I've watched Fritz the Cat and LOTR, and it still ain't enough. Besides Pop, the only other Bakshi out there on dvd is Heavy Traffic, and I hear it's pan and scan... boo! hiss!! And if they come out with Wizards soon, I'm gonna go postal!
Hmm, reading back over these posts, I'm beginning to realize the 35 v. Super35 thing is about how the film is shot, not projected. Please disregard my hopeful thoughts on this subject in my previous post. :b
I don't hope my posts came off as if I didn't care about the theatrical presentation, because I do.
But for me it's just more important for the movie to look good on DVD, because I will maybe watch a movie (say LOTR) max. 4-5 times at the ciname, but hopefully I'll watch it over 100 times on DVD.
We could discuss the pros and cons of 35mm scope vs. super-35 all day, but I still think that:
1. You will not be able to tell the difference on DVD.
2. PJ used super-35 for a good reason.
(and maybe just for the fact that Jeff Kleist of the HTF have named it "Official film stock of Mordor")
I actually like the look of the Bakshi film. It gives it a "pop art" look and is very unique. I can think of no other film that resembles it. Also, it's not "lazy". In interviews with Bakshi, he says they cut his budget way down after he had already started, forcing him to take shortcuts and not finish things the way he wanted to. He fully intended to completely animate the entire film.
As to the use of Super35. It's already been stated that with the forced perspective shots that fill the picture, 'scope lenses would not have worked. 'Scope lenses introduce a distortion that would have made the trick photography in this film quite impossible.
I couldn't watch past Bree. Like that sarcasm article stated, the use of live action people coloured in there was just too ridiculous. Sometimes you need some help suspending disbelief you know...
If I watch Ralph Bakshi's version will it spoil the next two Rings movies, or does it just focus on FOTR?
It's not the entire story. It goes about as far as the end of the battle of Helm's Deep from The Two Towers.
How far into the book The Two Towers is the Battle of Helm's Deep?
Helm's Deep occurs before the halfway point in the book, but the book doesn't cut back and forth between the two major plotlines like the Peter Jackson movie does. So chronologically, and in the Jackson movie, Helm's Deep takes place close to the end of TTT.
Bakshi, Bakshi, Bakshi... What can I say about this film?
Well, as a kid, I ADORED it. I still have the photonovel as well As an adult who has seen PJ's version... Well, I still like Bakshi's film, but it feels... Wrong in parts. Line delivery is average, music is sub-par, and while the rotoscoping gives it that distinct Bakshi feel (a good thing, btw), the fact that some scenes feature segements of colored live action footage, rather than full rotoscoped work, makes it feel cheap. Look at Merry and Pippin fighting the Orcs, for example. It's mostly touched-up live footage. It's as if someone cut off funding for the picture towards the end. The background characters in Bree are pretty lame, as well.
That said, I still find it likable, and PJ must agree with me, since he paid homage to a couple of Bakshi's shots:
The shot of the Ring "abandoning Gollum" is pretty much identical in both versions, as is the shot of old man Proudfoot (Proudfeet!) at the Party.