I hated it.

May I ask why you hated it? Just out of curiosity, as I'm not the biggest fan of them either.

It was a long time ago, but this is what I remember:

1. No one could sit still
2. The animation was horrible (whose idea was it to have actors in the cartoon anyway?)
3. They made Sam look like an idiot.

I was inspired by reading this very thread yesterday and very nearly choking laughing to pick up a DVD copy of this masterpiece.
It was worth every penny :D :D

I feel inclined to bump this thread as I watched the Bakshi cartoon two days ago.

It was, honestly, brilliant. For something made in the 70s, additionally so. I cannot describe how much I laughed... it was just magical. Aruman, butterfly-balrog, wavey-hands-and-scary-eyes-Gandalf. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and recommend everybody finds a copy.

Bakshi, Bakshi, Bakshi, if only you had read the book, I could imagine his teacher saying. Disastrous, awful, bad adaptation and weak script, those are its good points. Thank God they ran out of money or pulled the plug, can just imagine the Rotoscope version of Shelob.

Though the animation is pretty horrible by today's standards that was like cutting edge in the '70's. Though I'm no fan of the Bakshi cartoons I think he was, for the most part, faithful to the books. Far more than the ROTK and The Hobbit cartoons.

"Aruman" was an attempt to help the kids watching keep Sauron and Saruman separate, since their original names sound similar.

The only problem with that is half the actors forget this and still say Saruman a few times.

Just watched it for a third time. I was very much in the 'so bad it's brilliant' camp before, but I genuinely thought it was better this time. Some bits are right creepy, and there's a lot of book dialogue. Plus, all the atrocities they do commit add a great lot of humour.

Cailín saw it for the first time, and thinks it is abysmal. Give her time, though. ;)

Watched Rankin/Bass' The Hobbit cartoon for the first time a few weeks ago and I thought it was wonderful. Seriously, they don't make cartoons like this more. The animations were lovely, and so was the voice acting and the soundtrack. Gollum inexplicably looked like some kind of bulking salamander but he was downright creepy and the actor who did his voice did a marvelous job. Oh, that the elves of Mirkwood looked like gremlins was a hard pill to swallow but that wouldn't have been an issue for most kids, the target audience of the cartoon.

And that scene when Bilbo climbs a tree in Mirkwood and sees all them black butterflies almost brought tears to my eyes, I swear ;)

Just wish I had the chance to see it through the eyes of a child.

I know it has
 

gotten many younger fans to read the books for the first time. When it came out, media was just beginning to come around. Color TV in most homes were only about 10 years or so. Is it imperfect, totally. I saw it and I will tell you why I liked it but didn't like it. I would eat anything up at 12 that was Tolkien, and this was Tolkien. Having said that, I didn't like it because the characters did not resemble how I had visually created them in my mind while reading the book.

I also guess I'm like Tolkien, and no matter where I live, I am always looking for areas in nature that could be a location that fits my image or comes close to my image of a location in Middle Earth.

As a man in his forties, it is much easier to look at something like PJ's movies and realize that these are his adaptations of the book, his images. Mine may not match, and they are probably better (for me), I can still appreciate the entertainment that they offer.

The Bakshi film must be taken in context. For the time it was released, it was state of the art as far as animation. I think a lot of folk are spoiled by modern computer-generated anime to realize the amount of work that went into the preparation of this film.

In comparison to P. Jackson's film, Bakshi is far more faithful to Tolkien, particularly regarding dialogue (for instance, Bakshi retained Frodo's brave rebuff of the Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen, unlike Jackson's silly take of Arwen summoning up power she in no way possessed). Additionally, Aragorn's representation in Bakshi's version as a more grizzled, harder looking character fits more to Tolkien's description than the half-shaven pin-up boy Viggo in Jackson's.

It was a valiant effort bound to fail, given the lack of funding and the technological requirements; however, it is far more compelling than the daft and utterly doltish Rankin-Bass LotR cartoon. Everytime I hear the pseudo-folk wail of 'Frodo of the Nine-fingers', I throw up in my mouth a little.

Bakshi used a stable of artists who employed a technique called rotoscoping. A live film was shot of actors playing parts and then artists drew over it to produce animated characters. It was hardly new or state of the art. It dates back to 1915 and was developed by Max Fleishcher. Bakshi was merely trying to produce something cheaply and quickly instead of doing traditional Disney animation with 24 hand drawn frames per second.

I would not call Boromir as a Viking or Aragorn as more or less a Native American tracker as faithful to the JRRT text. They were both ridiculous.

Rotoscoping is certainly an old technique; however, this was the first entirely rotoscoped animated feature and utterly alien to many viewers. Traditional cel animation was planned for the film, and some was actually shot, but severe budget constraints canned the idea. It was perhaps the uniqueness of the filming that alienated many viewers used to Disney animation (I will say in Bakshi's defense that Disneys animation in the 70's was, in contrast, even more deplorable, not anything like masterpieces such as Bambi, Pinocchio and Fantasia).

You are, of course, correct about Sven 'Forkbeard' Boromir; however, the rugged, tanned and weatherbeaten features of Bakshi's Boromir evoked Tolkien more closely than Viggo's poster-pinup image, appearing foul but ultimately fair (Viggo looks ready for a second career as a rock singer). Aragorn was, after all, a ranger who spent many decades in the wild. It's rather like T.H. White representation of Lancelot as somewhat ugly but noble, rather than the epitome of a handsome preux chevalier.

It would have been interesting to see what Bakshi could have produced if he had Jackson's deep financial backing.

I actually watched the Bakshi cartoon around a week ago, and it really isn't that bad. Some things I found much better than in PJ's films, actually. For example the scene where they encounter the nazgûl in the Shire was really creepy. Also, I liked the way Bakshi and his crew had the daring to go on with their own artistic vision of the story, yet still remaining faithful to the original. The atmosphere was at times very strong, for example in the scene where the Rohirrim attack the orcs. I loved also the way things were given time.

There was of course much that I didn't like. Legolas' face was mostly ridiculous (though from a distance he actually looked much more convincing than Orlando Bloom), Boromir and Agagorn's clothes were horrid (Aragorn wouldn't have been so bad if he would have had trousers on... :p), Saruman was wrong (he had no charisma to his voice and his character was reduced to a grumpy, evil old fellow) and Galadriel looked like a barbie doll or a Disney princess. Gollum was ugly, but on the other hand, though I love Andy Serkis' Gollum, I liked the idea that Gollum isn't at all cute.

And the balrog had wings! :D

Mothoron - I have long suspected that the Bakshi film was not a hit was because the visual style was so jarringly inconsistent to the viewer. He tried to combine too many different techniques and it all came out as a mess. While he did rotoscope the main figures to gain a realistic look, his orcs were fuzzy and looked like film negatives. And then he hired some talented painters to do beautiful paintings of buildings like Rivendell but then had other landscape backgrounds which looked fuzzy and badly out of focus. For Bakshi, it was a technique born out of necessity and economics. If it worked, it would have been hailed as the work of an innovator..... (see the recent CLOVERFIELD movie which made a fortune for bad camera work) .... but it simply did not work due to its unevenness.

We would differ greatly on Viggo as Aragorn versus the Bakshi version. I felt Mortensen was nearly perfect in the role and he perfectly captured the right combination a character that both men and women viewers could relate to for completely different reasons. I still think that the Bakshi version only needs the stereotypical headress to be a complete Native American.

I think the human character in the GULLIVERS TRAVELS 1939 by Fleischer - was also completely rotoscoped... and not very well.

Designer stubble is so . . . fake, a kind of costive, cheap, would-be swagger. I think he would have been laughed off the Survivor island even before the competition started.

But then I think both Aragorn and Faramir are difficult characters to carry off, particularly in today's culture, caught as we are between Rambo/Bruce Willis and Will Farrell/Ben Affleck. I don't think either Bakshi or Jackson even attempted to present them as contemporary versions of Tolkien's characters. That concept of masculinity just don't cut it no more, no more, no more.

Just one woman's opinion, of course. ;)

Did you notice the similarity of some of the scenes in R/B's and PJ's films? It's been a while since I've seen either version of the trilogy but one scene stands out in my memory: when the Nazgul enter the Hobbits' room in Bree and stab the pillows. That one was almost identical in both movies, wasn't it? And it wasn't taken from the book either.

the Bakshi cartoon is...
 

>What a load of moaners<
Bush gets more respect
>Frodo's always being stupid with the Ring<
Yeah that totally ruined the theater –DVD release extended-version for me that I went out and bought each episode of and saw six times each to see if that would change… one of these days I’ll go on an internet rampage


Alright, let me get this straight

People who like the Bakshi creation are historical sentimentalists who appreciate bold expressions of artistic experimentation and creative thought applied to the grandiose work --Lord of the Rings. They are, however, put off that the work was not completed.

People who don’t like Bakshi’s work (critics) are upset:

1. --The artwork was not run through a 3d ray tracer
2. -–Bakshi’s gollum and how the critics imagined gollum are different
3. --Gandolf pointed out a few things too many times

Is that it?

Wait...you're being sarcastic, aren't you?

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic.

I thought Bakshi's LotR was good at the time (having seen it at the theater on its release); unfortunately, it has not worn well with age (more like a refrigerated bottle of Zinfandel than a nice, tawny port), and the animation is rather garish in spots. When considering a list of classic animation, Bakshi's LotR is certainly not at the top of the charts (although, as I stated previously, it is miles ahead of the grotesque Rankin-Bass TV version).

In addition, I thought Bakshi's version adhered better to the original plot than Jackson's (which is a plus for me -- far fewer jarring story deviations). Oh, and I was very disappointed that the film ended in midstream (or mid-Rohan more precisely). Now I'll never know if Frodo destroys the ring!

Steam Chip - having read this thread, I do not see anyone who expressed the feelings that you posted here.
I did not like it because
1 - it was a visual hodge podge of styles that ended up a mess
2- certain scenes looked as if they had been developed as negatives (orcs) and were just plain disturbing on the eyes
3- turning Boromir into a Viking and Aragorn into a Native-american tracker was way too much for my tastes
4- the battle scenes were simply terrible on almost any level

Nice that you pointed it out, because yes, in fact I did. The pillow scene is one, and also the one where the Nazgûl is searching for the hobbits in the Shire and they hide under a tree-root... It is strikingly similar, especially because it's not described that way in the book. I found it very interesting.

Supposedly, Jackson studied the Bakshi film and used several of the same camera angles and set up scenes in the same manner as the cartoon.

It has been an equally long time since I've watched either Bakshi's LotR or Jackson's LotR, and (I think) about as long since I saw the Rankin-Bass cartoons.

I say "thank goodness" to all three of them.

Unlike just about anyone in my age group, I saw the Bakshi and Rankin-Bass movies before Jackson's movies ever came out, and I had already read the books a few times--unusual since I'm right in that college-aged group that was the upper end of the "saw Tolkien for the first time in Jackson's movies" aged group.

My reactions, when I first saw Rankin-Bass and Bakshi were that they got it all wrong. Even so, I was young and foolish enough that I watched them two or three times, or more. At the time, I was rather annoyed at the liberties taken with the storyline. Legolas!! Where's Glorfindel? As a result of those movies, when Jackson's movies came out I was, on the one hand, really looking forward to what sort of a good job could be done in terms of visuals... but also burned once about storylines, and went in very wary.

Looking back after half a dozen years and more since FotR first came out, I have a different appreciation for the Bakshi movie and the Rankin-Bass Hobbit (the Rankin-Bass RotK, on the other hand, plays so poorly, it is a joke). At this point in my life, I have not watched Jackson's movies in a couple years, and I don't want to. My mental vision of the LotR was scarred first by Bahshi then by Jackson, and I've done my utmost to forget the ravages of both. But they are different sorts of ravages, I would say. Bakshi, and Rankin-Bass, scarred me in their visuals and audios. They simply did not have the clarity or seriousness or colour that I imagined in Middle-earth. Nobody looked quite like I imagined, and no place looked grand enough.

Jackson, on the other hand, captured many (almost all) of the visuals spot on. The scores were exactly the epic feel LotR deserved. But... it wasn't Middle-earth anymore. It was comic Merry, Pippin, and Gimli, girl-power Arwen, angsty Aragorn, and teen Frodo. Not that these were NECESSARILY the artistic presentations Jackson was trying to give, but they have a distinct flavour of it to me.

By contrast, I have a renewed appreciation for the Bakshi attempt. The audio-visual of the movie fails abysmally, and the movie can scarcely be redeemed since, after all, movies ARE an audio-visual medium; but it has my respect, at least, for a serious, faithful job. Much of the problem is simply monetary.

Things like pantsless Aragorn and Viking Boromir, I suspect, are as much elements of the movie being dated as we'll start noticing things about Jackson's movies in twenty years.

Nowadays I've just sworn the movies off altogether.

It is so long ago .. I remember being terribly astonished that it just finished - I don't think any warning was given on the box! I remember that Galadriel was big eyed and a bit tarty. I had forgotten about "Aragorn where's your troosers?"

Lol...

is this it?
 

Thank you Sauron the White I got me another piece:

—the orcs looked too garish,

And so
People who don’t like Bakshi’s work (critics) are upset:

1. --The artwork was not run through a 3d ray tracer
2 --The orcs are too garish and don’t accessorize well *
3. -–Bakshi’s gollum and how the critics imagined gollum are different
4. --Gandolf pointed out a few things too many times

*(covering the gripes about the unevenness of style, not necessarily comparing it to modern animation)

Although in the case of the orcs SPECIFICALLY (as opposed to a style castagory) he MIGHT have been doing it in purpose to make it look jarring and disturbing.

>>turning Boromir into a Viking and Aragorn into a Native-american tracker was way too much for my tastes<<

My apologizes --mustard and ketchup tend to dampen the nuances of flavor

That’s like-- Bakshi’s gollum and how the critics imagined gollum are different (characters don’t look the way you imagine they should look)

And / or Gandolf pointed out a few things too many times (characters don’t act or speak the way you imagine them to)

Battle scenes -- do we need more intestines, or less intestines?

I am wondering why you have this incessant need to summarize a discussion regarding folks likes/dislikes about the Bakshi film. From what I can gather, you may well be an inveterate BAKSHI APOLOGIST (one of at least three or four on the internet) who does not take kindly to any negative mention of the film, referring to anyone who does so as 'critics' (critics) in parentheses. Do you have an opinion (critique) you wish to share with the forum (critics)? Or will you be offering further summaries as the discussion progresses (or digresses, as the case may be)?

Well, I've never been a catsup lover, but mustard (particularly with horseradish), judiciously applied to a corned beef or pastrami sandwich, can be revelatory.

Oh, more intestines certainly; particularly since beheadings have so proliferated in films nowadays that they are becoming passe.

this is IT
 

Lets put it this way, If I had a little bit of cash, I would buy up the Bakshi film, knock off the last minute or so then finish it with another 90 minutes.

Of course Id have to revoice some of the dialogue, actors dying and so forth to have the new sound fit in with continuing characters with what went on before. But as far as the animation, characters, men without pants, barbie Gladreal, etc I’d keep it as faithful as possible to the original, warts and for continuity. It’s Lord of the Rings and no one else at the time was ambitious enough to take on that project.

Also, Rankin/Bass' at least TRIED to pick up the story with return of the King, it certainly is cartoon Bigfoot style change (as opposed to more realistic figure proportions), but more consistent quality and aimed at a younger audience but its Lord of the Rings. The part about them mixing it up at the crossroads in Mordor seemed more faithful to the book if I remember correctly.

The Hobbit, prelude to them all, also done in the Bigfoot style (done by the same Rankin/Bass' studio), so if one overlooks a few gaps, watching the Hobbit, Bakshis Lord of the Rings finally Return of the King , there is a start to finish animated story of the entire 4 book series.

Come to think of it, no need to finish, Rankin/Bass' already did, hmm spend my money on something else then.

A little bit of cash? Hmmm...well, the original Bakshi film cost $3 million to make ($6 million if you add in the John Boorman script that was eventually thrown out). In today's market, that's probaly closer to $20-30 million, given the need of heavy investment in technology (unless, of course, you find an animation studio with all the equipment at hand like Pixar or Disney -- which would not be a Tolkien choice). Add in the amount that Zaentz's Tolkien Enterprises would demand for licensing, and you've got a formidable amount to shake out of your piggy bank.

In the kindest terms, that is a rather dubious legacy. I prefer Rankin-Bass' Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer (the one with stop-action puppetry) to the LotR debacle; after all, as everybody knows 'Bumbles bounce!'.

The cartoon is terrible, Boromirr is portrayed as some sort of Viking and his death is robbed of any emotion. The live action sections are cringeworthy and seem like one long drug trip. Sam is robbed of any of his depth, you never once suspect that he has hidden reserves of courage and toughness.
And don't get me started on Saruman.
An abortion of an adaptation.

Now see, I think referring to Bakshi's film as 'an abortion' is perhaps a bit too strong of a description. Like I said in a previous post, it suffers from being dated, certainly, but I think it remains truer to Tolkien in many instances than does Jackson's interpretation, and to greater effect (as mentioned previously, Frodo defying the Nazgul at Bruinen Ford, the Nazgul in Bree, etc.). It has it plusses and minuses (perhaps much more to the negative than positive), but it was a valiant effort given the circumstances, and one should at least laud Bakshi for the attempt. Having seen the film upon first release, I can say with certainty (dimmed by age perhaps) that it was welcomed by those hungry for Tolkien material (just as the publication of The Silmarillion was a year prior), and more folks were upset that Bakshi never finished the sequel than were annoyed by his rotoscoping.

One could be a bit more harsher on Jackson, given his far greater budget and almost limitless access to technology. In fact, I consider Jackson's inane interpolations and ego-driven script maunderings to be far greater sins than anything Bakshi did.

I felt -- and do feel - quite the opposite.
It is interesting that the source material - LOTR - was the same but the reception of the two versions could not have been more different. Bakshi's film was a flop in so many ways inclduing artistically, box office return, critical acceptance, and was forgotten by industry awards. Jacksons adaption, as we all know, was a wild success in all those areas of measurement.

Its the singer - not the song.

*shrugs*

Not to niggle, but you're letting your animosity color your representation of the facts:

It was a box office success according to many sources on the net, grossing $30.5 million in 1978 dollars, with a budget of only $3-4 million (a 100% profit is quite respectable, I'd say).

It was nominated for Hugo and Saturn awards (Saturns did not have a best animated film category until 2004, and the Hugo has never had one) as well as winning a Golden Griffon. As you may not be aware, full-length animated films rarely receive any Academy Award or other major film recognition (in 1991 Disney's Beauty and the Beast was the first animated film ever to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Film).

Critical review was mixed, not universally panned. Check your sources.

Ah, but there is no tune if there are none to pay the piper. Bakshi managed to get a lot out of the tin whistle he could afford; who knows how he would have played had he been handed Jackson's Stradivarius.

Again, it's all a matter of opinion, I suppose. It was certainly not great, but it was not as abysmal as you make it out to be. Thus, I believe I have adequately defended mediocrity.

I agree that Bakshi was handicapped by the budget he had to work with. That applies to almost every filmmaker inclduing Jackson who had to work within the constraints of a budget, although larger by comparison. My complaint is with how Bakshi spent his money. The film is a mismash of styles that are at times at odds with each other. He hired such artists as Mike Ploog - who did these enchanting light hearted classical Disney drawings - and then hired other artists who worked in a very fuzzy, almost impressionistic style. Then we have the weird negative images of the orcs which defy almost any identifiable style.

Pick a style - any style - and stick with it. Bakshi's LOTR was not FANTASIA with individual vignettes telling individual stories with individual styles and approaches. It was suppose to be one film and as such with one vision.

If Bakshi's film returned a 100% or better profit as you indicate, I wonder why the second half of that film was not given the greenlight? If those figures are true and accurate, I would have thought that the studio would gladly put up the funds to double or triple their investment yet again.

The HUGO and SATURN awards are not given by the professional film community. As such, they are not an expression of film excellence in the same sense that the Oscars and Bafta's are. I guess one could take the approach that an award is an award is an award. For my money, I put them in a far different - and lower - category.

I blame Tim Burton, whose first animation job was on Bakshi's LotR. He is by definition weird.

Mr. White, I request that you immediately desist in using logic regarding the Hollywood process of making films. If one were to use logic, then Bakshi would have had more money for his budget to begin with. Hollywood defies logic, much like Wile E. Coyote complained that the Roadrunner defied the law of gravity (to which the Roadrunner replied he had never studied law).

*Grumbles* You must have missed the part of my last post explaining that full-length animated films did not receive Academy Award nominations during most of the history of the Oscars.

Sorry if this is mentioned here already, but tl;dr.

I once read that Jackson had seen the Bakshi cartoon as young lad and quite enjoyed it. In fact, in my opinion, he liked it so much that he stole a few shots from it. What comes directly to mind is Bakshi and Jackson's portrayals of the Hobbits hiding under the tree near the rode in Three is Company as well as the scene where the Black Riders stab the stuffed pillows. There are only so many ways to do a scene, one might say, but several are strikingly similar. Does anyone remember any others?

from Morthoron

No I did not miss it ... or overlook it ... or ignore it. It would be more accurate and inclusive to say that the Motion Picture Academy did not bestow its higher awards on any fantasy based film regardless of its medium or format until ROTK. That applied to animated gems like FANTASIA or PINNOCHIO and to non-animated films such as WIZARD OF OZ and ET. Jackson's ROTK sweep of 11 out of 11 nominations into awards, including Best Film of the Year, rewrote that particular truism of the Oscars.

There have been several fantasies that have been nominated for Academy awards, like for Best Picture (Wizard of Oz, Dr. Doolittle, A Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, Babe, The Ten Commandments...okay, I'm joking about that one), but did not win (but won Oscars in other categories); however, no full-length cartoon was ever nominated for a major Oscar until 1991 (Beauty and the Beast). And, no, I don't believe Bakshi's LotR warranted a Best Picture nomination in any case.

By the way, were you aware that only one G-Rated film has ever won Best Picture Oscar? It was the musical Oliver!

as mentioned earlier on in this thread (a couple of years ago??!!!) - the ring bouncing down the rocks in both introductions of the film.

What about Indiana Jones?;)


Incidentally, most might be interested in one moose's take on the Bakshi version: http://www.flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm