Bakshi vers Jackson

[Quazar]

Me and the wife watched our tape of Bakshi's animated version of LOTR last night a week after we say Jackson's FOTR. It is amazing how time distorted my memory of the cartoon. In previous posts I have defended the animated version as being nearly equal to the film. As we watched we both kept going, 'I like the film version better', or 'they left that out also'. Aragorn was positively ugly in the cartoon and his voice grated on my nerves after a shot while. So I am here to state that Jackson's version is much superior to Baksi's.

[FrodoFriend]

I've only seen the Bakshi version once, and that was in 3rd grade. Wait, maybe it was The Hobbit I saw . . . no, it was LotR. In any case, it confused me. I had no idea what was going on, except that at the end there was a big battle and I didn't know what they were fighting about. So from my albeit limited experience I would agree.

[jerseydevil]

The animated version does have a lot to be desired. It has it's good points and bad points. I'm also, as everyone knows, not praising Jackson's movie either. But there are things that I like from both and there are things that I hate about both.

It seems like I only ever make it halfway through the animated version.

I did buy the Tolkien: Master of the Rings DVD (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005UPFL/qid=1011626518/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_74_2/102-6039346-9704150) at Best Buy this weekend. That is highly recommended. Bropous also started a thread about it here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2809)

[Churl]

Here's The Onion's interview with Ralph Bakshi (http://avclub.theonion.com/avclub3644/avfeature_3644.html). In it, he talks about a lot of his other work, but he also addresses some of the criticisms of his version of Rings.

By posting this link, I'm not defending the animated version — it definitely left a lot to be desired. I just thought that since we were talking about Bakshi's version, it would be useful to include some of his thoughts on the subject.

(Warning: The Onion (http://www.theonion.com) is one of the funniest sites on the web, but it's also completely uncensored — read long enough, and something is bound to offend you, no matter how thick-skinned your sense of humor. That "raw" aspect applies to their interviews, too, so if you're put off by bad language, you might want to avoid this link.)

[Churl]

One other thing: I remember reading that interview when it first appeared. Rereading it now, his ego really bugs me … sure, he's self-deprecating in places, but everywhere else he has this "I was a genuis / my version is brilliant / the studios screwed me over" attitude that's really grating.

[jerseydevil]

I got that same feeling from the interview. Also his whole attitude toward Jackson, who I don't think created a masterpiece either. He just seems to have a very "sore loser" attitude toward Jackson making a live action version and he comes across as just a bitter old man.

The article was interesting though. Thanks

[hiku747]

i have seen Bakshi's version too many times to count, ever since i was 4 years old it has been my favorite movie. now tis jackson
s fotr. the only way anyone could appreciate and understand Bakshi's version is if they were extremely familar with lotr. he leaves tons of things out. i still love that movie though, i can resite the whole thing by heart. :D

[katya]

I just saw the Bakshi version last weekend. Don't even ask about the actual renting experience!!! ahem. well anyway all I kept thinking was "I have a new appreciation for the Peter Jackson movies" and "this movie is sooooo loooong." And it really wasn't that good to watch if you compare it to the Peter Jackson film. But if you look at it more artistically, especially the flight to the fords (though that part really confuses me beyond all hope) it's very interesting. I won't say I don't like it. Although, there is much to be desired. The ending confused me let alone people who havent read the books. And maybe it's just me but I just died when I saw Treebeard! ah! Anyway I liked it in some ways other than the reasons for liking the Peter Jackson film.

[samwise of the shire]

Watching the Ralph Bakshi version kind of made me appreciate PJ's work. Bakshi didn't do a good job. The editing is HORRENDOUS jumping from scene to scene without any explanation for the new comers. They cant even say Celeborn straight. It's like they completely over looked the appendixes. Plus the animation was bad. The scene in Bree just...dont remind me. Aragorn TRIPS on his SWORD, Gimli is left out of the picture when it shows Legolas and Aragorn (we get a good veiw of Legolas's nostrils...elf snot...mmmmmhhhmmm), the orcs look like body builders in gym suits. And the hobbits look like The Beetles...specially Frodo. Oh and Sauron looks like a Knight who says Nee...look at a picture of a Nee Knight and then a picture of the RB Sauron. There's something about it on the Tolkien Sarcasm page which is rather humorous. Disney could have done better...I didn'nt like it.
Cheers,
Sam

[osszie]

I absolutely adore Bakshi's version of LotR......the reason is I have to care for my friends 8yr old daughters a lot of the time and they will watch it constantly...................anything that can keep two 8yr olds quiet for more than a half-hour has to be the work of genius:D

Personally I prefer the Jackson(although Sam was much more "Sam" in the cartoon) film over the cartoon.......but I prefer the book even more;)

[Dunadan]

I remember seeing it when it came out, and then again about 10 years ago. The reaction first time around was horror, as none of us realised, going into the film, that it finished abruptly halfway through the first book.

Second time, it looked better. The way they did the armies was quite interesting, technically, and I thought produced a really good effect. However, it's still pants, especially the talking turnip and the hobbits.

[webwizard333]

I've seen and hated it. The following link contains many of my own personal hates of the film, and some very funny comments as well.

review (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm)

[Sminty_Smeagol]

I only watched like 5 misn of it. I watched soem of the prologue, got bored, fastforwarded to the end, only to find there was none. Please do tell of the talking turnips.

[katya]

ah the prologue...yeah...that was just bad.
most of it was really and i agree with most of that review. but it was still worth seeing once I suppose. It does have good qualities. I actually liked that part right before the real fight to the fords starts in a weird way though it made no sense whatsoever. Notice also that the hobbits live in above-ground houses. That's not quite right.

[cassiopeia]

I saw Bakshi's version once and I had heard it would be bad, so perhaps I was expecting it to be and it was awful! I hated the animation techniques. They kept refering to Saruman as Araman and Saruman and Aragorns clothing, I felt, was entirely inappropriate for battle. ;) Bakshi's version makes PJ's version look absolutely brilliant and flawless.

[bropous]

Well, at least the Bakshi film got the Fords of Bruinen right.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The animated version does have a lot to be desired. It has it's good points and bad points. I'm also, as everyone knows, not praising Jackson's movie either. But there are things that I like from both and there are things that I hate about both.

It seems like I only ever make it halfway through the animated version.

I did buy the Tolkien: Master of the Rings DVD (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005UPFL/qid=1011626518/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_74_2/102-6039346-9704150) at Best Buy this weekend. That is highly recommended. Bropous also started a thread about it here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2809)

Netfilx also has the DVD available to rent.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by bropous
Well, at least the Bakshi film got the Fords of Bruinen right.

Ok, I forgot about that, I havn't watched Bakshi's version for six months. :rolleyes:

[Dunadan]

The talking turnip was what Treebeard looked like.

I think that Jackson owes a debt of gratitude to Bakhi, though. Without him, we wouldn't have had such low expectations about a film of the book, or even believed that it couldn't be done. Jackson's achievement looks more impressive in that light.

However, in the film, Sauron looked like a big fiery fanny, so it wasn't without its moments.

[webwizard333]

I would like to quickly add that some parts of it I did like, and I appreciate the effort that went into. However, the movie mostly just seemed convoluted to me, and I had difficulty even watching it from boredom.

[samwise of the shire]

Ralph B. did NOT get the fords of Bruinen right...if he wanted to get it right he would have gotten GLORFINDEL in there to rescue him. Not that it would have helped....
Cheers,
Sam
ps. Talking Turnip...I like that.

[osszie]

Originally posted by webwizard333
I would like to quickly add that some parts of it I did like, and I appreciate the effort that went into. However, the movie mostly just seemed convoluted to me, and I had difficulty even watching it from boredom.

Yeah I can appreciate that:) .......... Bakshi seemed to stretch dramatic tension to the point of dramatic apathy:rolleyes:

[GRONK!!!]

Umm.. did anyone besides Bakshi make animated LoTR? Because GRONK say an animated LoTR years back and he remembers seeing Frodo/Gollum destroy the ring at the end of the movie. According to what GRONK read in the interview Bakshi only did part 1....

[Cirdan]

Someone did do RotK but Idon't remember it very well. It was not very good.

[bropous]

Is it just me, or is "third person voice" REALLY pretentious?

Yup, Rankin-Bass did do an animated "Return of the King," but I never saw it. I did see some stills, though, and all you have to do is think Rankin-Bass Hobbit and you have it pegged.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by bropous
Is it just me, or is "third person voice" REALLY pretentious?

Yup, Rankin-Bass did do an animated "Return of the King," but I never saw it. I did see some stills, though, and all you have to do is think Rankin-Bass Hobbit and you have it pegged.

yep... too cute, too fat. That's about all I remember.

[GRONK!!!]

Oooh rankin-bass. GRONK read that thread on that cartoon but misread it. He read spankin bad ***. GRONK thought they were talking about some unprofessional website that tried a LoTR cartoon that few people knew about.

[theworkhorse]

Alot of people looking at Bakshi's version are too critical. The movie was made at a time when that 'shadow animation' was fairly popular in fantasy movies, (see Wizards, though that might have been Bakshi related).

The movie seemed to be made only for people who have read the books. I could be wrong on this point, maybe Bakshi has mentioned something contrarily. But the film seems to be made solely to give us visuals to go along with the books. I hope this is the case, because I watched the movie with that in mind, and so was not too disappointed.

Admittedly, for non-Tolkien readers, the film could not have been interesting. But for people who have longed for a visual representation for so long, it was all we had.

Personally, I think Bakshi attempted to stay truer to Tolkien than Pete. Perhaps it was because Pete realized he had to deviate to bridge the gap between literature and film that more people were more impressed.

I think the big differences in quality is founded mostly on 20 odd years of film/animation developement and a huge budget difference.

theworkhorse

[theworkhorse]

This version of the Lord of the Rings is a horribly mangled adaptation that tries to turn the books into a children's story. Its only merit is that it introduced the books to children like me.

[bropous]

True, Bakshi's version was all we had, and we were hungry for visual stimuli, and we went, and we saw, and we went "awww, man!"

Bakshi had some good points to his film, but of course, his complete failure was his inability to follow it up with the completion of the story.

The rotoscoping was pretty interesting for the time, and correct, Bakshi also used that format in his quite interesting and more adult "Wizards," which happens to be a pretty entertaining film.

[Linarryl]

Really? I should go see Bakshi's LOTR! Is it still good even if it's not as good as Jackson's?

[Yazad]

Hello Mooters!

Okay, I'm digging up a very old post and I'm a very old poster (haven't posted in almost a year!).

In the year that's passed since the release of the FotR, I've watched Jackson's and Bakshi's films maybe 20 times each, and I've come to a conclusion.

It is my opinion that Bakshi's film is an absolutely, positively brilliant and a stunningly beautiful piece of art.

Jackson's film is adequate, but mostly Hollywood tripe.

Each and every time I watched the Bakshi film I liked it more (admittedly I have watched it maybe 100 times in the past).

Each and every time (except the first time after the extended version came out) I liked Jackson's film less.

I'm really sorry if this sounds like a troll, but I just have to vent. I am absolutely flummoxed at the depth with wich this Jackson worship goes on. I have no clue how people who are so into Tolkien can forgive (to the point of director worship) what he's done. I ***can*** understand how non Tolkien fans love the film, I can understand how Arnold Schwartzenegger fans like it, but fans of the literary quality of the books??? I don't get it.

To me Jackson has bastardized the books far, far worse than Bakshi ever did, even by cutting the story in half and not producing the second part. The screenplay is ATTROCIOUS, and the dilogue ludicrous.

What's even more hilarious is that Jackson insanely fell into traps which Tolkien specifically refuted (vehemently!) with relation to M. G. Zimmerman's film treatment. Everything from the fight scene on Weathertop to the representation of Lembas as a "food concentrate". It shows very clearly that the production team DID NOT do their homework, or worse yet - didn't care. But what really makes me ill is that there's such horrible vitriol spewed out on poor Mr. Zimmerman's work, and nobody even thinks twice about someone who should have known better making the same transgressions. Now I guess I can understand how someone might forgive Jackson, but then one must extend the same grace to poor Mr. Zimmerman.

Now all that said (venting mostly), I really did like the Jackson film, and I am very happy that it was made.

But to me, the Bakshi film is glorious - art at its peak - every image is one of absolute beauty ("talking turnip" and all). The animation is ground breaking and far more ambitious than anyone gives it credit for. The flight to the ford scene is, IMO, one of the most glorious segments ever caught on celluloid. The score is phenominal (ranking with the two other greatest scores of all time - Peter Gabriel's score to "The Last Tempation of Christ" and the score to "Requiem for a Dream" (which, ironically, was used in several previews of TTT)) and the voice acting is brilliant.

Now I haven't seen TTT yet (new baby and all), but I'm steeling myself for it this weekend. Hopefully it won't disappoint, but after my bombing opinion of FotR, I'm not expecting too much (other than glorious eye candy).

Am I insane or is there ANYONE out there who agrees with me???

david
Yazad

[Firekitten2006]

I noticed this in the Bakshi Interview :)

I heard that Boorman was taking the three books and collapsing them into one screenplay, and I thought that was madness, certainly a lack of character on Boorman's part. Why would you want to tamper with anything Tolkien did?

Wasnt LOTR originally meant to be one book? I thought it was but maybe I'm wrong.

Later in the interview he calls New Line "Fine Line"

I saw the Hobbit. :) I thought it was dragging in parts, but considering I was 6 at the most, and I still remember parts, I think they did pretty well.

[Yazad]

Firekitten, you're certainly right that the book was originally inteneded to be published as a single volume, at least by Tolkien.

One big divergence (IMO! - and this is a big IMO) is the representation of Galadriel. In the book, I think it is clear that each and every member of the company (minus maybe Boromir) is IN LOVE with Galadriel when they leave Lorien. Personally I found nothing in the Galadriel we saw in either version of Jackson's FotR that would lead me to believe that anyone would feel any sort of allegience to her at all, any sort of love.

In the Boorman/Pallenberg screenplay Frodo and Galadriel (believe it or not) actually have sex, and Gimli goes on about how frusterated he is about the situation; he says something like "It's not her counsel I want." It's kinda silly actually, but I think it's, for all its absurdity a far closer representation of how the company felt about Galadriel than in the Jackson film. Not that Tolkien meant anything sexual about their adoration for her, but it's very clear that they all were absolutely taken by her heart and soul.

That's not really all that relevant to this conversation, but since you brought up Boorman, I figured I'd pipe in as it's something that's been bugging me. :)

d

[-elfearz-]

Originally posted by Dunadan
However, in the film, Sauron looked like a big fiery fanny, so it wasn't without its moments.

LOL omg you thought so to?? i thought it was just me - all my friends were like what are you talking about?? - of course it looks like an eye.

when i first saw the bakshi version a couple of years ago, it wasn't as bad as i'd expected. despite numerous and hideous incidentals - the 'talking turnip', the fluffy bedroom slippered balrog, sell-a-born, boromir the viking, aragorn the miniskirted, gandalf the spasmic gesticulator and (s)aruman (it cracks me up how when gandalf's imprisoned in orthanc he yells 'saruman! ARUMAN!) :p not to mention the completely incoherant plotline i think it managed to capture the flavour of the book (if to a limited extent). i think this was largely achieved through the inclusion of a few well done (and subtly done - something that can't be said about too much in the jackson movie) scenes.

it was interesting to read bakshi's comment in the interview that he thought that jackson's team was picking out all the good bits from his movie, coz that's exactly what i thought when i saw fotr - bits like the four hobbits' first encounter with the nazgul, the nazgul in bree and the bit where boromir practices swordfighting with merry & pippin reminded me of similar scenes in the cartoon (only in bakshi's version it was aragorn swordfighting with frodo in lorien). also, interestingly, both film versions had legolas directly behind gandalf instead of aragorn.

bakshi's version certainly leaves a lot to be desired (and unlike others, i don't like the music - i think it sounds like an american marching band, not that i've ever actually heard one), but i think jackson's is overrated - while as a complete movie it was certainly better bakshi's characterisation is more complete - if he'd had more resources and a bigger budget i think his film could've had more depth than the new version. while i love the new line version (well, fotr anyway, ttt not out in australia) i think it was saved by the gorgeous nz scenery which really put tolkien's descriptions into visuals. the acting is good overall too, but i think the general plot runs the risk of being 2 dimensional and, at points sappy. i think this is mainly because of the lack of accurate/convincing/good characterisation.

i dunno...just my thoughts :D

[Kalimac]

I saw the Bakshi movie in the theaters when it was first released. Total disaster. Sorry. If you think PJ's version was bad . . . you really needed to be at the theater when this thing played on the big screen. It was incomprehensible. Artsy. Yup. Interesting. Yup. But, it couldn't make enough money to sustain itself . . and, thus the film was doomed to never be finished. Tolkien fans waited and waited and waited. It is entirely because of the film box disaster of Bakshi's film that I was able to embrace PJ's version of LOtR.

Although, in all honesty, I never really disliked Bakshi's film . . at that point I would have watched anything. People just do not understand how fortunate they are to be FINALLY after 40 years
able to see a decent adaptation. Until you don't have something . . you just can't really appreciate it. Most of you have been waiting 1 years, 2 years, maybe even 10, and you think its a long time . . . try 30 or 40 years. Of course, there is always the chance that someone else will come along 40 years from now and create an even better Lord of the Rings. That's marvelous for you youngun's, but for me . . this is it. Now where's my cane. :rolleyes:

[Arathorn]

Originally posted by Kalimac
Now where's my cane. :rolleyes:

Don't hurts us! :eek: Nice PJ...nice New Line movieses... ;)

[Yazad]

It's been almost 20 years for me, since I first saw the Bakshi film (though I sadly, never caught it in the theaters - just barely too young 7 years old in 1978), but thank goodness for the magic of DVD and a borrowed LCD projector! Watching both this and the extended Jackson films on a "big wall" has been a real treat!!!

Anyway, the idea that the Bakshi film failed at the box office is a myth. The film which I believe cost $3M to make (I believe still the longest animated film in history (definitely at the time) runs 134 minutes and originally ran 155 min) grossed $10M domestically (U.S.) and made similar amounts worldwide. Not an insane money making machine by a long shot, but a reasonable return on a modest investment.

The main reason, I believe, that the second part was never made was that Mr. Bakshi had moved on to other projects, UA had serious financial problems with lots of flops, and timing was never quite right again. In my mind, that is the greatest tragedy.

That said, I can only imagine what it was like (well I can a little more than imagine, I tried to flip the VHS (or was it Betamax) tape when the film ended and VCRs were still new) to be in the theater thinking you were going to get a whole film and then just have it end. *wham*. That musta driven people nuts.

At least we can rest assured that Jackson will get all three of his films out :).

But, as Kalimak mentioned, because Bakshi's film didn't do phenominally well and wasn't labeled as definitive, we've been given the treat of seeing how another director can handle the story. The problem with the Jackson movies is that they're such crowd pleasers and so successful at the box office, that it is very unlikely that we'll see another version of the story in our lifetimes.

Oh well, I guess we're fortunate to have 1/2 an art film, 1 full live action film, two children's cartoons and two radio dramas out of it. Most stories don't get quite so many opportunities at interpretation.

Yazad

[-elfearz-]

Originally posted by Kalimac
I saw the Bakshi movie in the theaters when it was first released. Total disaster. Sorry. If you think PJ's version was bad . . . you really needed to be at the theater when this thing played on the big screen. It was incomprehensible.

i agree. i don't think they bakshi film was a good movie, i think it was a sucky movie :p. but it's main failing was it's incoherence (like you said). if you ignore that (ok, that and the many incidental problems with it) it does have a LOTRish feel about it.

i don't think pj's version is bad, but i don't think it's as good as it's made out to be. i don't think bakshi's version is good, but i don't think it's as bad as it's made out to be. that said, i don't even think the two are that comparable given the mammoth differences in time, support for the director, resources, budget etc. but i do think that each film has it's good points where the other fails.

[Faramir Took]

I turned the cartoon off after 30 minutes. My 7 year old son thought it sucked as well.