Has anyone seen the animated version?

[Orcrist]

:confused:
Has anyone seen the animated version of LOTR? I got it for Christmas and I didn't know it even existed. I've watched it quite a few times and it is quite good.
I also think it's very similar to the film, and that Peter Jackson probably got a lot of his ideas from it.
Please post in and tell me if anyone else has seen it, and also what they think of it.
Thankyou!
:)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, indeedy, I have. I thought it was good, too. Seemed to me to capture the spirit of Tolkien better than PJ's. Though I think a lot of the Mooters will disagree. (Black Breathelizer certainly would :eek: `)

There's already a topic about Bakshi vs. Jackson. (Bakshi did the animated version). This might get closed because of that; but then again, it hasn't been posted in for awhile. And of course, this topic isn't about Bakshi vs. Jackson.

[Varda Oiolosseo]

The animated version freaked me out a bit! If it's the same one as your talking about. there is only one animated version isn't there? :confused:

[Celebréiel]

Theres two, Bashkis weird unfinished one....and another one that was three movies. I think the other one is much harder to find tho...*shrugs*

[Varda Oiolosseo]

Thanks! I wasn't sure! But the one i have is unfinished and it really freaks me out especially the Ringwraiths! :(

[Insidious Rex]

Freaks you out? Hmm. Well its very limited. And the musical aspect is just annoying. And it skips stuff. I think the Jackson films were much better. But then you have to give them credit for attempting such a thing like over 20 years before the film and when Tolkien was still a relatively underground deal compared to how it is now. Now the animated Hobbit movie was fun. That was designed more for animation really.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Varda Oiolosseo
Thanks! I wasn't sure! But the one i have is unfinished and it really freaks me out especially the Ringwraiths! :( What do you mean by unfinished? :confused: Does it end abruptly in the middle of the story?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There was Bakshi's (which ends the same place as PJ's TTT. Coincidence? ), Lord of the Rings, and Rankin and Bass did the Hobbit and the Return of the King.

[Lady_of_the_Golden_Wood]

My dad says that I can't see it because it's too stupid. I asked him though.

[gimli7410]

how long is the animate movie

[Aralyn]

Personally I hated the animated version. I mean I like to pretend Middle earth is actually a place and in order to really enjoy the story (at least in my case) you have to believe it could happen. Animating it makes it seem so . . . not real. I liked PJ's better.

I know Middle Earth is not a place:rolleyes: I just pretend it is. Um never mind I'm not here . . .:D ;)

[hobinator]

You know the scene with Odo Proudfoot when he says "Proudfeet"...PJ said he copied that directly from the animated version and wanted to keep that the way it was.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

And also where they hid under the root, if I am correct.

Middle-earth IS a place. Northwestern Europe! :D

[The Cute Warg]

I have seen a little bit of the animated version it's fun and it's also very cool.Don't you think sam looks a bit like a wart-hog where as in the film he is sooo sweet. Anyway speek to you later :p ;)

[legolas7410]

iahve seen the hobit made in the 60's but not he fellowship of the ring but i hope to soon! is it good? is the animation good?

[Aralyn]

Someone has a qoute that qoutes Ian mcklellen as saying there is a middle earth and its new zealend. Amen to that!!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Don't listen to him! It's really Northwestern Europe!!! :D

[Merlin]

All I got out of the animated version was,

Sing sing sing Frodo Aragorn AAAhHH oh no hahaha

Not a big fan of it obviously, I could at least understand Peter Jackson's :D

[Aralyn]

AMEN Merlin! Exactly what I was trying to say. It was not very apealling. And Gwaimir well I haven't really seen either so once i do I'll let you know what I think. Where in Northern Eourope?

[azalea]

I happened to see this in the library the other day, so I checked it out out of curiosity. I had seen it about fourteen years ago, and remember becoming physically sick to my stomach because I thought it butchered the story so badly. After watching it again from a more mature perspective, I found that it wasn't as bad as that. My criticisms, specifically, are these:

Sam -- horribly animated and characterized. This is one of the things that made me sick.

The use of roto-scope was a very bad decision. VERY bad. It just looked too cheesy, and made the regular animation, which wasn't bad, stand out as animation, whereas if it had been completely done with traditional animation, it would have been easier to overlook the fact that it was animated (does that make sense to anyone?)

The orcs -- these have to be the very worst aspect of the movie. I think this was the other main thing that made me ill. They look like a bunch of guys wearing fake tribal masks. They are so poorly conceptualized by whomever was responsible for them.
The nazgul weren't much better. They practically looked palsied.

The final shot that shows Gandalf in slow motion killing an orc, and all the blood shooting up out of it -- yuck, what a bad way to end the movie.

Other stuff that stood out:
As I said the traditional animation wasn't that bad. I did find it humorous that since it was made in the '70s, the hobbits had '70s style hair and Galadriel looked like one of the women from ABBA. :) But since I was a child of the '70s, I didn't mind it.:)

I thought his flight to the ford scene was too drawn out, with several seconds of inactivity. You can use that effectively in some live action movies, but in animation, it just looks lazy. In fact, I saw a lot of little things that looked like laziness (I can't remember specifically, but just stuff like that -- bad editing, I guess, and maybe some bad sound editing).

Of course the stuff people usually mention: Boromir the Viking, Aragorn the pro-wrestler (voiced by John Hurt), Legolas aka Bruce Jenner (voiced by C-3PO), a very tall Gimli, Aruman (why did they keep switching), the "barbarian" style Rohirrim, Treebeard. And of course the event stuff that was poorly changed from the book. However, it didn't make me physically ill this time, and I actually enjoyed it to some extent, so I guess I can change my former opinion of it from "terrible" to "mediocre." :)

[Lady Ravyn]

those were sort of...strange...
did anyone else think gollum looked like a frog and that all the orcs resembled bulldogs? O.o

[AL.D]

If you want to see a funny, and pretty one-sided review of the Ralph Bakshi animated version of LotR go here:

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

Personally I don't think the film is a complete disaster, as it has some funky design, (the Black riders are pretty creepy). However, as an actual book adaptation...it's quite awful.

The above website picks up on an unforgivable error. They've actually changed Saruman's name in the film to 'Aruman', maybe so as not to be confused with the name 'Sauron'!?! But the problem is that it's only changed for some of the time. Sometimes he's called Saruman...sometimes Aruman!

And for that alone, it should be looked upon very sceptically.

Another interesting fact about the film, is that Anthony Daniels, who plays C3PO in Star Wars, is the voice of Legolas!

[Twista]

In my opinion its a bit rubbish lol, and yes, Gollum did look like a frog lol. :p

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by azalea
Sam -- horribly animated and characterized. This is one of the things that made me sick.

Agreed. It did not mak me sick, but sam did not look right. Sam from the RB version of ROTK was better.

Originally posted by azalea
The use of roto-scope was a very bad decision. VERY bad. . . . (does that make sense to anyone?)

Unfortunately, I understand all too well. I would have prefered a consistant animation style. Most of the film was animated in an acceptable fashion (as far as animation goes) but the roto-scope makes it look as if a cartoon is in the real world (like Roger Rabbit or Tony the Tiger)

Originally posted by azalea
The orcs -- these have to be the very worst aspect of the movie. I think this was the other main thing that made me ill. They look like a bunch of guys wearing fake tribal masks. They are so poorly conceptualized by whomever was responsible for them.
The nazgul weren't much better. They practically looked palsied.


I agree with the Orcs. I thought the Nazgul were fine, for the most part. The one in the beginning looked comical with the sniffing and limping he was doing when near Frodo and the ring.

Originally posted by azalea
The final shot that shows Gandalf in slow motion killing an orc, and all the blood shooting up out of it -- yuck, what a bad way to end the movie.

You mean you do not like LOTR being turned into D&D hack and slash fest with slow motion animation?! ;)

[azalea]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Sam from the RB version of ROTK was better.


I agree, definately.


You mean you do not like LOTR being turned into D&D hack and slash fest with slow motion animation?! ;)

Lol!:)

I realized looking back on my post that I forgot to include any positives -- I did want to mention that despite all of my criticisms, I could see some real care going into it. For instance, although a lot was cut out, and some parts changed, you can tell they really were trying to make it doable as a movie, yet seamless, while keeping it as close as possible to the text. There were a lot of lines and interactions from the book that were nice to have in there.

[Cassius]

Ha ha! This post signifies the triumphant return of Cassius!

On the subject, the first exposure to Tolkien (sadly) for me was the Hobbit animated feature. I only realize now the...um...badness of it, after revisiting it a month or two ago. It sticked to the story nice enough for a cartoon on a low budget, but the animation and voice acting leaves something to be wanted.

-Congrats Sister Golden Hair for those nifty anti-bashing posts! I feel safe now :D -

[Fewin Greenleaf]

sadly, i haven't seen one. where can i get this animated version? can anyone please tell me coz i'd really love to see it?

[brownjenkins]

it's on the cartoon network tonight if you get that where you are... they had the hobbit on last night... you can also buy it through amazon i believe

[Fewin Greenleaf]

oh, ok. thanks!

[barrelrider110]

Gollum looked like a mutant frog in the Rankin Bass Hobbit, but I thought Bakshi did a pretty good job with Smeagol in LotR. He pretty much stuck to the Tolkien story line, but I agree with Azalea about the rotoscope. I imagine it's cheaper to animate that way, and Bakshi ran out of money halfway through. He promised to use proceeds from the first half to finish the job.

I remember when it came out in theatres--not too many mooters can say that--I was pretty excited. I got there and there was only a handfull of people there, and half of them walked out before the movie was over. I thought never in a million years is someone going to try this again...

[azalea]

Hey, I remember when it came out, but my mom wouldn't let me see it -- she thought it was too violent! I was :mad:! (Well, I was just a kid!:) )

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by azalea
Hey, I remember when it came out, but my mom wouldn't let me see it -- she thought it was too violent! I was :mad:! (Well, I was just a kid!:) )

Interesting comment, Az. I remember reading something about the Hobbit animated movie, that the action was dumbed-down there were concerns because at the time about violence on Television.

Perhaps it's my way of looking at things, but I thougt the action in the a- LotR was really corny.

[Hawklan]

iI too was a sweet teen when the Bashki version came out and I loved it - remember there was only the BBC radio version around at about that time ( bit before or after,the mind deceives me sometimes ). Cartoons , sorry animated films were pretty poor quality compared with today, but if its cutting edge at the time then you cant really compare it with anything else can you. It should be remembered that it was the first animation to show slow motion ( i hear you gasp from hear ) and most of the movie was actually filmed with "live" actors and then basically coloured in later. This gave us some really freaky visuals - indeed many a Friday night was spent after the pub watching the "freaky" cartoon. I still have my programme from the opening night when I saw it in Liverpool and I will remember it fondly.

[AntiXZer01]

I just saw an animated version on some cartoon chanel on tv some time ago. It looked awful! Saruman looked more like Santa clause in a red cloak. And aragorn in a subligar!!!!! Horrible! It was funny to laugh at but wow that was scary!

[Mrs Maggot]

For anyone who wants to read a very scathing review of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, i found this…
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

It's from a great place called 'the Tolkien Sarcasm page' Very funny.

[Something]

I have seen TLOTR, The Hobbit and TROTK as animated movies.

[trolls' bane]

Once I saw the first five minutes :rolleyes:.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i watched it the other day,
to me it looked like the nazgul were drunk, swaying from side to side, and then they started singing to each other after attacking the beds at the prancing pony, what was all that about!!??!!
and what the hell was up with gandalf's weird hand gestures?
gandalf: that ring is alltogether (insert unnecessary arm sweeping movement) evil frodo.

and why did sam look about 80 years old?
and he sounded like he was from somerset, which i suppose is right for his character
and why did treebeard look like a giant carrot?
and why were all the orcs lounging around on the floor when (S)Aruman was telling them to go off to helms deep?
and why did the balrog look like a lion with bat wings, and why were there only about 10 orcs in moria?
i have lots more questions like this!! but this is enough for now!! :D

[brownjenkins]

i caught it again on tv a few weeks back... we were cracking up the whole time, it does have that 'so bad it's funny' quality about it :p

[The Nameless One]

"and what the hell was up with gandalf's weird hand gestures?
gandalf: that ring is alltogether (insert unnecessary arm sweeping movement) evil frodo."


That is probably the worst thing about that movie. It seems like the animator was so concerned about the movements of the caracters and their fluid like motion, that he totally forgot about the movie itself :D It's kinda made me sick watching them move like that.....especially when their moving CONSTANTLY! I don't think any character stoped moving once in the movie :eek: Even when a character like Sam is just standing in the background, not really the focus of attention or anything, his face muscules are in constant motion. What's up with that! :confused: Like he's switching emotions by the second. It kinda makes me feel ancy and it's hard to watch a movie when all the characters look like their on crack. :D

[jerseydevil]

I like the animated one better than jackson's for several reasons. If you read the books - the nazgul are more like the are in the book. They sway back and forth as if sniffing for something.

Other things include the flight to the ford scene - true to the book - not that crap Jackson came up with. The emphasis on the friendship, with the speech from Merry about why they are going with Frodo to Rivendell. I also felt Pippin and Merry were much better in the animated one and not a bunch of brainless idiots that Jackson made them out to be.

[The Nameless One]

For me those are probably the only things they got right in the cartoon version. And saying that Jackson's ford scene is crap is an icreadably blunt statement with no reasons supporting why you think its crap. The only thing I didn't like about that scene is when Arwen says"If you want him, come and claim him." She just sounds corny to me. Other than that I thought it was very well done...especially when she spoke in elvish to bring forth the river.Here's a few reasons I dont like Bakshi's version.

1.) Bakshi's version had no elvish (to my knowledge ) at all in the movie. I could be wrong though cause I haven't seen the video I got in like a year. :D But I have no recolecing of any elvish. Using elvish would have made the elves a little more believable.

2.) All of the battle scenes are too dark and you can't see whats happening. Especially the scene when the rohirrim battle the orcs near fangorn.

3.) all the orcs look like cavemen and they dance instead of fight.

4.) The Aruman mistake is unforgivable.

5.) The way Boromir prononces Minias Tirith....Minus Tirith? Whats up with that...the poor guy cant even say the name of his own city correctly.

6.) Boromir looks like a Viking ready to rape and pilage and drink ale till he drops.

7.) The Bolrog looks like a freakin manticore....????

8.) the whole movie feels rushed especially when the TTT portion of the movie starts. Like they got tired and lazy and just stoped caring.

9.) Treebeard is in only ONE freakin scene! and he looks like a giant carrot/stump more than a tree.

10.) the last thing Ill mention is the lack of explanation for accuring events. There is little to nothing explaned. The movie plays through like everyone is already familier with the story so therefore they dont have to explain anything because that would take to much time away from dancing orcs and mispronunciations of important key names and cities.

I think Im done. Sorry for wasting your time with my ranting :D

[jerseydevil]

For me those are probably the only things they got right in the cartoon version. And saying that Jackson's ford scene is crap is an icreadably blunt statement with no reasons supporting why you think its crap. The only thing I didn't like about that scene is when Arwen says"If you want him, come and claim him." She just sounds corny to me. Other than that I thought it was very well done...especially when she spoke in elvish to bring forth the river.Here's a few reasons I dont like Bakshi's version.
Anyone who has seen my three years of posting on what I think about jackson's films and why - doesn't need me to go any further than to say that Jackson's flight to the ford scene is crap. There are many people here that can tell you exactly what my problems are with jackson's movies, particularly with that scene. I see no need to go into it for the umpteenth time. There are hundreds of threads in this forum that you can go to - particularly the one that talks about Arwen Xena-Elf.

By the way - I'm more concerned with the '"feel" of the movie - not whether everything is exactly correct. I can forgive a lot more in Bakshi's than I can in jackson's. Jackson lost the heart adn soul of Lord of the Rings - by making it into a dumbed down hollywoodized action flick.

[mithrand1r]

I can forgive a lot more in Bakshi's than I can in jackson's. Jackson lost the heart adn soul of Lord of the Rings - by making it into a dumbed down hollywoodized action flick.

I agree with much of this sentiment.

Jackson had a large budget to work with in making the LOTR films. I thought the PJ films were better than average (I did enjoy watching the films, but there were many things that I found disappointing in the theatrical releases of the films). With the budget available, I thought the films could have been much better.

While there are many things to be critical of in Bakshi's version of LOTR, I would have liked to see what Bakshi would have produced if had similar financial resources as PJ did in producing his films.

Bakshi still may have made mistakes, (as PJ proves money does not guarentee error free work :D) but I would have been willing to let him try again with a better budget. Not realistic at this time, but you get the general idea.

[Wayfarer]

Anyone who has seen my three years of posting on what I think about jackson's films and why - doesn't need me to go any further than to say that Jackson's flight to the ford scene is crap. There are many people here that can tell you exactly what my problems are with jackson's movies, particularly with that scene. Actually, I think I have an Itemized list floating around somewhere. With bullet points.

[mithrand1r]

1.) Bakshi's version had no elvish (to my knowledge ) at all in the movie. I could be wrong though cause I haven't seen the video I got in like a year. :D But I have no recolecing of any elvish. Using elvish would have made the elves a little more believable.
There was some elvish, (when Aragorn Greeted Legolas, The opening of the mines of Moria) but not much.

2.) All of the battle scenes are too dark and you can't see whats happening. Especially the scene when the rohirrim battle the orcs near fangorn.
Will need to rewatch film. Although I do think that some of the battle scenes are a bit confusing. (I always thought it was just me ;))

3.) all the orcs look like cavemen and they dance instead of fight.
I agree that the orcs looked terrible. (I did not care much for the orcs in PJ's LOTR either.)

4.) The Aruman mistake is unforgivable.
Stupid yes, but relatively minor compared to some of the other errors in the film.

5.) The way Boromir prononces Minias Tirith....Minus Tirith? Whats up with that...the poor guy cant even say the name of his own city correctly.
Related to #4.

6.) Boromir looks like a Viking ready to rape and pilage and drink ale till he drops.
Maybe related to Sauron. ;)
While Boromir was not how I mentally pictured him, I did not think his outfit was too bad. (Although, I did think of a Viking when I first saw him. :D)

7.) The Bolrog looks like a freakin manticore....????
I never thought much about the balrog since I was very unfamiliar (till reading here and a few other places) with how a balrog should appear and sound.

8.) the whole movie feels rushed especially when the TTT portion of the movie starts. Like they got tired and lazy and just stoped caring.
Definately has that feel towards the end. Regardless of the reason for it. I think this is mainly due to your reason #10.

9.) Treebeard is in only ONE freakin scene! and he looks like a giant carrot/stump more than a tree.
I liked how treebeard looked. Since you never saw much of him it is hard for me to form a strong opinion about him. What I did see was ok to me.

10.) the last thing Ill mention is the lack of explanation for accuring events. There is little to nothing explaned. The movie plays through like everyone is already familier with the story so therefore they dont have to explain anything because that would take to much time away from dancing orcs and mispronunciations of important key names and cities.
I agree with you here. There could be several reasons for this. Two that I could think of are:
Lack of funds to properly produce the film,
The directing is not very good.

[jerseydevil]

Actually, I think I have an Itemized list floating around somewhere. With bullet points.
Hey Wayfarer - haven't seen you around - but then again - I haven't really benn in the Tolkien forums and only popping in and out of general every so often.

Anyway - do you have those bullet points handy? It'll save me a lot of typing and searching. :D :p I think as a good summary of my feelings "Jackson's flight to the ford scene was crap" summarizes it quite nicely, don't you? :D

[The Nameless One]

Bakshi still may have made mistakes, (as PJ proves money does not guarentee error free work :D) but I would have been willing to let him try again with a better budget. Not realistic at this time, but you get the general idea.


Yeah I would like to see it redone. The Bakshi movie had a lot of potential and could have been great. I did see it before the FOTR came out and I didn't think it was that bad at first, but when PJ's version came out there was no doubt in my mind which one came out on top. I still think Bakshi's will be medeocre at best. Who knows? Maybe 20 years down the line someone else will direct another lotr that will surpass PJ's. But with his self need of "film" perfectionism, I think it will be hard for anyone to surpass his directoral genius. :cool:

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

welcome back JD, didn't know you had returned! :)

to be honest i didn't like the look of treebeard in either versions,
either a carrot or a weird thin tree.
i had visualised him more as an oak-type tree, as this was supported by various lines in the books, i.e: when describing the entmoot, it says how some ents seemed to be related to treebeard, recalling the oak and beech

but he certainly was no carrot,
carrot, i am no carrot, little orc etc

[EarthBound]

I noticed what looked like a new animated series of Hobbit-LOTR at the video store last week. The cover scene looked different than the older two we've all seen (or most of us). It certainly looked like a rerelease and it was in the New Movie Section. The characters looked softer and rounder (like a kids movie type drawing). I only gave a quick glance and immedietely assumed they were new. Likely they were only new to the store, but who knows.

Anyone else seen them in their video stores (new movie section)?

[Wayfarer]

Hey Wayfarer - haven't seen you around - but then again - I haven't really benn in the Tolkien forums and only popping in and out of general every so often.

Anyway - do you have those bullet points handy? It'll save me a lot of typing and searching. I think as a good summary of my feelings "Jackson's flight to the ford scene was crap" summarizes it quite nicely, don't you?

Jackson's flight to the ford scene was not recognizable as the same scene from the book. The changes were too pervasive to bear any more than a passing resemblance to the written scene it was based on. Up until this point, the story of the films is more or less in agreement with that of the books, but at this point it veers off sharply. As a result of this, later scenes which more closely resemble the original story do not make sense in light of the new events of this scene.
The behavior of all characters involved in Jackson's 'Flight to the Ford' scene was reduced from a complex interplay of factors into a collection of lame stereotypes. Elaboration below:
One of the strongest characters in the story (Frodo) was reduced to a simpering, useless, hanger-on. This is important, since the Flight to the Ford scene is one of the pivotal points in the story where he displays his bravery.
What should have, by any sensible expectation, have been /the/ major threat throughout the first two films (the Nazgul) was downplayed and dismissed. As a result of this, their reoccurance later in the films is laughable. If the Nazgul are so easily defeated in the first film (not only once, but twice) then there is no plausible explaination for why they are suddenly so feared in the later two films.
Exceptional valor on the behalf of SEVEN characters was completely disregarded entirely. Since five of these characters were to become members of the fellowship, this is a critical mistake, which weakens many of the primary characters throughout the rest of the films.
An extremely minor character (Arwen) was given the roles of every other character in the scene (except the Nazgul), and not only matches but surpasses what they manage to achieve in the story.
As a result of this, the audience is left wondering why Arwen doesn't go with the fellowship. After all, she's clearly better than Aragorn, Gandalf, and Elrond combined, yet for some reason she's not taking a more active role in the story.
Things which should have been dramatic (the confrontation with the Nazgul) were rendered pathetically. Needless psuedo-drama was added to compensate (Arwen getting all weepy when Frodo collapses)
Speaking of which, Arwen misquotes herself. Rather, she wrongly uses the words of her novel alter-ego in a way which does not make any sense whatsoever. Taking a line from the end of the story and inserting it at the beginning of that same story doesn't often work, as the circumstances are often wildly different.
The actually calling of the flood was both reduced in drama from the original version (It happens fast enough that you could blink and miss it), and cast in such a way that it did not fit with the world as portrayed by either the films or the movies. This leaves me wondering why, if 'The power of the Elves' allows Arwen to call up a flood with a simple chant, we do not see more of this overt spell-slinging in the rest of the movie.

I'm sure I missed a few... But to shorten it up, Frodo, Arwen, and the Nazgul all act in a completely out of character fashion that weakens both them as characters and the overall plot for the rest of the trilogy.

There are scenes which I think are worse, but the Flight to the Ford is the one place where the story really begins to fall apart for Jackson. It's all downhill from here.

Okay. On another note:

I don't know whether Bakashi would have done any better if he'd had more funding. In fact, I'm pretty sure he would have done just as badly if not worse. Before making the LOTR cartoon, Bakashi's biggest success was making cartoon pornography (by comparison, Jackson at least managed to make some cult films in New Zealand). There were plenty of things wrong with his film that didn't have anything to do with the rotoscoping - and as Jackson proves, you can make a film that's great visually but bad overall.

[Millane]

[list](by comparison, Jackson at least managed to make some cult films in New Zealand). . damn straight he did. not just little cult movies that are good for a laugh but some truly great films, Brain Dead and Bad Taste and to a lesser extent Meet the Feebles (still a work of magnificence :p )
Bakshi's LotR is one of those movie you will enjoy at best (and not for any meritable reasons) but when compared to something like Watership Down it fails miserably. Watership Down now that is truly the best animated adaptation available :D

[Durin1]

I've read with great amusement some of the opinions of the animated version of LoTR. :)

I personally thought that it was the bee's knees when I saw it as a youngster!! And I think that's the point: Bakshi's version was attempted at a time when there was nothing else comparable to the size and scope of the task that was involved.
Of course, looking back there were some glaring mistakes or aspects that weren't that good - of course there were! Namely pronunciation and character depiction of Boromir and Sam. However, I take these at face value. There probably wasn't great research done before-hand on pronunciation etc, probably owing to budgetary constraints. There was, however, good emphasis placed on keeping more true to the book. Eg. Flight to the Ford, Merry's " you can trust us to stick withyou through thick and thin, to the bitter end" etc etc.

BTW, Elrond was depicted a lot better too in the animation compared to PJ's version.

Also, I thought the music was quite good too.

[Nurvingiel]

It didn't irritate anyone that it wasn't finished?

[mithrand1r]

It didn't irritate anyone that it wasn't finished?

It was annoying to me. It would have been nice if Bakshi finished animating the second part of LOTR. While I seriously doubt he could have properly filmed the rest of the story in two hours (assuming the 2nd film would be about the same length as the first and considering some of the choices made in the first film), I would have liked to see what Bakshi would have done.

Although given some of the poor animating decisions made, perhaps it is just as well that he did not finish. ;)

Actually, if he did a better job with the first film he may have made enough money to fund the completion of the 2nd film.

[Elessar the Elfstone]

Bakshi animated version things that went wrong
1. Sam for ovious resons
2. Boromir the Viking
3. Aragorn the red indian
4. the orcs the looked like vampire cave men gone wrong
5. all battle scenes
6. Elrond looked like he was scratching himself right through the council scene
7. crazy Gandalf
8. the way the film ends with loads of blood shooting out of an orcs chest
9. Aruman]
10. the hobbits hair cuts
11. treebeard the carrot

Bakshi animated version things that went well
1. Merry
2. pippin
3. flight to the ford scene
4. galadriel
5. bilbo's party scene
6. gollum

Peter Jackson version things that went well
1. sam
2. Gandalf
3. Boromir
4. Aragorn
5. the shire scenes
6. Helms deep
7. moria gate
8.treebeard
9.merry and pippin were still ok
10 Golum/smeagol
11. frodo (was good most of the time)
12 the prolouge scene

Peter Jackson version things that went wrong
1. flee to the ford scene
2. arwen
3. the way towards the end of the film frodo always speaks in the same tone of voice.
4. Nazgul
5. Galadriel

[matthew]

I think I saw a different version from y'all...
the one I saw, it was sacrilege. Merry and Pippin appeared to be female. The whole thing was badly done and marketed to kids. It was awful. I only saw about 15 minutes though... I ought to rewath it before I flame it anymore :)

[me9996]

I think I'v seen it, but I think it is was in two parts, the part I saw as far as helms deep.

[me9996]

I saw the first one you talked about! :) :) :)

[ItalianLegolas]

i've seen it, but I was 7 at the time and the Nazgul really creeped me out... so i don't remember any of it

[me9996]

Just so you know I am entering my own things preseded by :D s



For me those are probably the only things they got right in the cartoon version. And saying that Jackson's ford scene is crap is an icreadably blunt statement with no reasons supporting why you think its crap. The only thing I didn't like about that scene is when Arwen says"If you want him, come and claim him." She just sounds corny to me. Other than that I thought it was very well done...especially when she spoke in elvish to bring forth the river.Here's a few reasons I dont like Bakshi's version.

1.) Bakshi's version had no elvish (to my knowledge ) at all in the movie. I could be wrong though cause I haven't seen the video I got in like a year. :D But I have no recolecing of any elvish. Using elvish would have made the elves a little more believable.

2.) All of the battle scenes are too dark and you can't see whats happening. Especially the scene when the rohirrim battle the orcs near fangorn.

3.) all the orcs look like cavemen and they dance instead of fight.

4.) The Aruman mistake is unforgivable.

5.) The way Boromir prononces Minias Tirith....Minus Tirith? Whats up with that...the poor guy cant even say the name of his own city correctly.
:D I thout he was right!

6.) Boromir looks like a Viking ready to rape and pilage and drink ale till he drops.

7.) The Bolrog looks like a freakin manticore....????

8.) the whole movie feels rushed especially when the TTT portion of the movie starts. Like they got tired and lazy and just stoped caring.

9.) Treebeard is in only ONE freakin scene! and he looks like a giant carrot/stump more than a tree.
:D He's in it?!?! :confused:

10.) the last thing Ill mention is the lack of explanation for accuring events. There is little to nothing explaned. The movie plays through like everyone is already familier with the story so therefore they dont have to explain anything because that would take to much time away from dancing orcs and mispronunciations of important key names and cities.

I think Im done. Sorry for wasting your time with my ranting :D
:D Don't worry!

[me9996]

Another thing: The orc horns (And all horns in it) are squeky! :eek:

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

I just purchased The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien and in his letter #210 he discusses his feelings concering the film version [1958]. I was wondering which film version that was? Is it the animated version?* I, personally, only know of three film versions; two animated and one by Peter Jackson. So which film is it exactlly?

*Also I appologize if the letter #210 does not discuss the animated version, as if that is the case this is a slight off topic post for this thread. Though I'm sure you mooters wont mind that.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

btw, i review the animated film as well as P film in my essay, follow top link in sig

[azalea]

A belated response to Halbarad's query: I believe the production refered to in Letters was eventually scrapped due to funding or some such thing.
It doesn't refer to either of the animated movies.

[Nurvingiel]

Speaking of underfunding, why didn't Bakshi finish the movie? Did he have some unforseen expense? Why wouldn't he be able to get more money?

I bet a lot of movies go over budged but you don't see many unfinished ones out there.

[me9996]

Speaking of underfunding, why didn't Bakshi finish the movie? Did he have some unforseen expense? Why wouldn't he be able to get more money?

I bet a lot of movies go over budged but you don't see many unfinished ones out there.
I've seen... one. :o

P.S.
The 90 second rule... for the good of all mooters or sinister plot?

[mithrand1r]

Speaking of underfunding, why didn't Bakshi finish the movie? Did he have some unforseen expense? Why wouldn't he be able to get more money?

I do not know for the time before PJ&Co.'s LOTR but now Bakshi does not want to finish the film he started. From the interview it also seems that he is bitter at PJ&Co.

FPS-frames per second magazine » better living through animation (http://www.fpsmagazine.com/feature/040703bakshi-6.shtml)


FPS: "In the spirit of Lord of the Rings" considering you did the first one.

BAKSHI: I'll send it to them! Are you kidding? I'm not going to let that one slide. "In the spirit of Lord of the Rings, I want to do Wizards II." I'll use it.

BAKSHI: [I've been asked] to finish Rings in animation. I really don't want to.

FPS: That was one of the questions I wanted to ask.

BAKSHI: I know that. Everyone wants to ask that question. Why should you be different?

FPS: Because we're all curious. We love Lord of the Rings the books, we liked your Lord of the Rings, we liked the Peter Jackson one.

BAKSHI: The picture was just done. I don't want to do a picture that's been done. He's finished it! It's no fun doing something that's been done. It's just no fun for me. Why would I want to spend three or five years working doing something that someone else did?

FPS: Good point.

BAKSHI: If I got the same money he had, I could grind him into the ground with mine, but the point is, why bother? Everyone knows that anyhow.

FPS: I'm definitely a fan of your version of Lord of the Rings, as well as the Peter Jackson one.

BAKSHI: [My version]had more character, more soul, more heart. Less sneaker selling.

FPS: We thought it was pretty obvious at several points in the Peter Jackson version that they did take a couple of riffs from you.

BAKSHI: Uh huh. They took everything from me. The ring wraiths were taken from me. There was a lot! I mean, I designed the ring wraiths.

FPS: Now, I know Peter Jackson said he also saw your films, and obviously it was some degree of an influence. I mean, how do you take that?

BAKSHI: Oh, some degree of an influence! Holy ****! Some degree of an influence! What are you talking about?

FPS: Hey, I can be diplomatic either way, see? [laughs]

BAKSHI: Let me ask you a question. You're a bright lad in Montreal, right? Some degree of an influence. Look. I'm sitting here with a book called Lord of the Rings, and no film to look at. Every ****ing thing you're looking at in Rings I—the design, Gimli, Aragon, the dwarfs, the elves, all that stuff—I came up with, basically because there was nothing to look at. Peter Jackson looked at it and said, I like that, I don't like that, I can improve on that. Who are you kidding? Look at his Lothlorien. Look at my backgrounds of Lothlorien. Take a look! He had much more to see than I did, and if you don't think he lifted it over and over again, you're wrong. I mean, how did he design a knife in Lord of the Rings? How did he design a sword? How did he design the dwarf with his axe? How did he design the fur around him? Why did Peter Jackson put fur around the dwarf? Because I put fur around the dwarf! Why would the dwarf have fur naturally? You see, I could give you a billion little things. I wish I had a movie to look at. That's fine for Peter [Jackson]. But for you to say "somewhat"—****. ****, that's ridiculous.

[me9996]

I do not know for the time before PJ&Co.'s LOTR but now Bakshi does not want to finish the film he started. From the interview it also seems that he is bitter at PJ&Co.

FPS-frames per second magazine » better living through animation (http://www.fpsmagazine.com/feature/040703bakshi-6.shtml)
Ah...
That explains it...