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

[Barquero]

Hmmm... I for one have always liked the unique overall style of the film, and really don't understand the negative backlash towards the rotoscoping animation, or pacing of it. It's really not that bad at all... with the exception of the very begining.

 

[Rick ricardo]

I remember loving the bakshi version when i was a kid. I liked it as much as the original star wars and the two films were tied for my favorite film for a long time because of being able to be taken into a whole new world at the theater. But now i sure see the many flaws with the bakshi version. I still like it but it doesn't even come close to the pj versions.

 

[MichaelBA]

So, last night I watched Ralph Bakshi's THE LORD OF THE RING for the first time since I was ten, when the movie came out. I really didn't much remember it. Mostly because I never read Tolkien until last year. And now, with this post, I guess I'm keeping up with latecoming by reviving a "dead" thread that hasn't been added to for just over two years. Oh well.
I liked the movie, in short. Do I like the technique of rotoscoping? I sort of do. At least, I don't mind it. I think back in 1978 it was more shocking to animation purists. But, lookit, today with CGI robbing almost ALL sense of the organic in a film, rotoscoping seems positively brimming with a primitive vitality. The rotoscoped parts, even if kind of cheap, really felt ALIVE and EXCITING! And some of the images were rather dark and disturbing. Scary!
What's bad about Bakshi's film?
The music is pretty horrible.
And the non-rotoscoped animation looked sloppy and lumpy and weird and wrong. Treebeard and Gollum were just terrible. Really detracted from the good bits. I guess this is his style. If so, I don't like it. If it's a product of his having to hurry through the traditional animated bits because of costs or production problems, then that's a shame.
Also, it's very clear that about 3/4 into the film, something goes awry. It had been moving well, then suddenly -- not. Is is not the case that the producers balked at Bakshi's intent to make a trilogy and so all his preparation, at the time, to make several films was collapsed into this one? And the poor level of that compression marked that final quarter of the film. It's not that it's packed in, but rather emptied -- there's even repeated footage. At the end, there's just a long and rather stilted combat sequence, without dialogue at all. Hard to follow, unless you really understand the book, and even then not overly exciting -- and yet, Bakshi's dignified restraint makes an interesting counterpoint to Jackson's sometimes really bad over-the-topness.
Anyway, in the Bahkshi RING, after the Battle of Helm's Deep, there's an out of the blue, tacked on ending, that just puts on the brakes in a very weird and clearly unfinished way. Too bad, because really more than the first half of the film was pretty good!
It seems that quite a lot of the Bakshi RING made it into Jackson's first installment, into FOTR. Did Jackson ever acknowledge the influence? It would be churlish for him not to! This scene in particular struck me as being appropriated by Jackson directly from Bakshi:

Other things too, even though: >>[Bakshi] also believes that his visualizations of the Tolkien characters are a part of the public consciousness[; still] he doesn't get the credit that he feels he deserves.>[Bakshi is] apologetic to those people who feel that he didn't live up to Tolkien.
"Let me be the first to say that I probably made two billion mistakes. I'm the first to admit that I can't be as good as Tolkien, and a movie can never be as good as Tolkien. All I ever told the fans, I think then, was that I was going to give it the best shot I had."
But Bakshi remains convinced that it is a fruitless task to even try to transfer Tolkien from page to film.
"I hope these guys do a better deal with it," he says. "I'm not for an instant, I'm not sitting here for a moment saying my film was good or great or worthy of Tolkien. I've never said that. I'm never going to say that. I just gave it the best shot I could, and if I did anything, I think I established some of the character design to look the way Tolkien might have liked them. His daughter certainly loved the way I designed the film. But as far as everything in the book, I can't do it, and this next guy's not going to do it. You can't do it ... even in a million movies.
And, he adds, "I'm anxiously waiting to see what these guys do with my movie! Ha ha ha ha! Quote me! Do me a favour and quote me on that."

 

[Richard Kim]

I liked the movie, in short. Do I like the technique of rotoscoping? I sort of do. At least, I don't mind it. I think back in 1978 it was more shocking to animation purists. But, lookit, today with CGI robbing almost ALL sense of the organic in a film, rotoscoping seems positively brimming with a primitive vitality. The rotoscoped parts, even if kind of cheap, really felt ALIVE and EXCITING! And some of the images were rather dark and disturbing. Scary!

I'm sorry, but rotoscoping in Bakshi's LOTR was absolutely atrocious. Even the worst looking CGI looks better compared to it.

 

[MichaelBA]

Good to know that Jackson acknowledged Bakshi. Does Jackson credit. I like that.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I'm sorry, but rotoscoping in Bakshi's LOTR was absolutely atrocious. Even the worst looking CGI looks better compared to it.

I agree. Bakshi had better results with rotoscoping when he did Fire and Ice, IMO.

 

[Jon Bell]

The scene where Strider is sitting half in shadow at the Prancing Pony is very similar in both versions.

I have a lot of affection for this movie. Maybe it's because I want it to be better than it is, and if I watch it just one more time, the problems will be fixed.

Hey, you gotta love "miniskirt Strider" and "Viking Boromir".

 

[MichaelBA]

"miniskirt Strider" and "Viking Boromir"

 

[Sam Favate]

This scene in particular struck me as being appropriated by Jackson directly from Bakshi:

I thought the same thing when I saw Fellowship in the theater. I wouldn't be too hard on Bakshi - he was working with what he had, and the studio didn't give him what he needed to do justice to the story. The latter half of Bakshi's LOTR feels so rushed that if you hadn't read the books or didn't know the story, you'd find it hard to follow. I know I did as an 11-year old in 1978. Still, the animation was good and the film produced some images of the characters that remain influential (look no further than Jackson's tribute).

 

[Matt Stone]

Some of the animation is good, but some of it is downright atrocious. I remember a scene at a bar that just looked like video with a red filter on it. The orcs look pretty terrible too...as did the strange looking balrog.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Lars_J]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[DavidPla]

I like Bakshi's Sam more than Jackson's.

BLASPHEMY!!!!!

 

[MichaelBA]

BLASPHEMY!!!!!

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