Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron the White
Does anbody really care about what was correct or wrong about the Bakshi adaption? You just do not hear much about that? And does anybody really care about the Rankin-Bass TV adaptions if THE HOBBIT and ROTK? But mention the movies here - and on many other sites - and you get a real debate and temperatures can get a bit heated.
.
|
I remember quite a bit of discussion in the Tolkien Society when the Bakshi movie came out, but that was a long time ago. I re-watched some of it recently & given the time & limitations I don't think it was too bad an effort. I don't think its worse than the PJ movies - if Bakshi had had the same budget & technology to hand I suspect his version would have been much much superior. Bakshi had to resort to animation & rotoscoping because that was all that was available. Its nearly thirty years since Bakshi's version appeared, & none of us can say whether PJ's version will even be remembered thirty years from now.
It was also successful enough to help inspire the BBC to adapt LotR for radio (a couple of the same actors were involved) - & that version is far & away the best adaptation that there has ever been - Jackson's version doesn't even come close. I challenge anyone to set aside a day (its 13 hours long) & listen to the Sibley/Bakewell LotR & not be profoundly moved. Starting out in the Shire in the morning & following the characters through the day & ending back at Bag End late at night is an amazing experience. I've done the same thing with the extended editions of the movies once & at the end just felt glad I'd managed to get through it.
And that's the point I'd emphasise - it is possible to produce a brilliant, beautiful, powerful &
faithful adaptation of LotR. Its just that PJ didn't manage to do it, whereas Sibley, Bakewell & the BBC did.