Greatest sin of Peter Jackson

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I have never heard the BBC broadcasts but will take up your challenge. I have ordered it through Amazon for $45.00 US.

I must take issue with the statement that the Bakshi film is no worse than the Jackson films. The Bakshi version was handicapped by the lack of the budget that Jackson had - so I concede that to you. But I found fault not with what he was unable to do - but what he did do. Boromir as a viking!!!!! Aragorn looking like some American Indian. The orcs were pretty terrible and the entire rotoscoping technique made much of the film look muddy and without proper detail. His Balrog looked like a monsterish version of the Disney character Goofy. The scene with the Nazgul on Weathertop was terrible with the Nazgul looking beyond bad. Helms Deep was almost like a bad Mad Magazine parody with all these actors hidden under robes and hoods with fangs coming out of their mouths that glowed in the dark.

If you have the Ballantine Books Filmbook of the movie you can see this in all its glory.

It has taken me years to get rid of some of those horrid images. Of course, I imagine that is how some here feel about the Jackson films.

But it was obvious that the public certainly did not take to the Bakshi version as they did to the Jackson films. The public spoke loudly in that regard. They clearly voiced a preference.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem ... I have never heard the BBC broadcasts but will take up your challenge. I have ordered it through Amazon for $45.00 US.

Best Frodo, best Sam & best Gollum by far. Not to mention an amazing Saruman. http://www.briansibley.com/Broadcast...GoesEverOn.htm. Of course, you'll never know the thrill of waiting for the episodes to be broadcast over a six month period (originally as 26 half hour episodes on Sunday lunchtimes, re-cut to 13 hour long episodes for re-broadcast). And they retain Tolkien's dialogue for the most part, & many of the songs & poems.

And I note from Sibley's piece:

The scripting took several months. The completed scripts were then sent to France to be read and approved by the author's son, Christopher Tolkien. His help with the project included recording an audiocassette of the acceptable pronunciation of Middle-earth words and names.

I must take issue with the statement that the Bakshi film is no worse than the Jackson films. The Bakshi version was handicapped by the lack of the budget that Jackson had - so I concede that to you. But I found fault not with what he was unable to do - but what he did do. Boromir as a viking!!!!! Aragorn looking like some American Indian. The orcs were pretty terrible and the entire rotoscoping technique made much of the film look muddy and without proper detail. His Balrog looked like a monsterish version of the Disney character Goofy. The scene with the Nazgul on Weathertop was terrible with the Nazgul looking beyond bad. Helms Deep was almost like a bad Mad Magazine parody with all these actors hidden under robes and hoods with fangs coming out of their mouths that glowed in the dark.

Of course the look of the movie is terrible - but that's the point I'm making - Bakshi didn't have the resources Jackson did, & was basically having to invent the look of M-e from scratch. When I compare the money & technology the two directors had I have a softer spot for what Bakshi achieved than what PJ did. I'd seriously like Bakshi to have the same budget as Jackson & see what he made of it. I strongly suspect that if Jackson had been reduced to animation & rotoscoping his version would have been much worse than Bakshi's.

[Knight of Gondor]

Would you have it any other way? I think a perfect balance has been struck. Fans have been introduced to Tolkien's works through a magnificent and artful film trilogy. Yes, there were problems, discrepancies and changes, some more severe than others. But PJ knew he had to cater to more than purists if he was to create magic at the box office, and I think he did well overall.

Look at the results. The films reign among the very great now, and have enticed many more to read Tolkien's works. I doubt this very forum would be at its current state if the film had not come into being.

And yet, there are those of us who can still maintain a Tolkien purity of sorts. It is we who were interested in the books before the film, it is we who delve into the intricacies of the genealogies of the Eldar, it is we who, as Jason Fox of the comic "Foxtrot" once remarked, "drew detailed maps of Osgiliath on our notebooks during math class."

If I may say so without sounding arrogant or elitist, this base of fans who derive their knowledge of the films primarily from the films, don't have the richer, deeper background in Middle-Earth to appreciate the history, lore and legend.

I don't know about you, but it kind of makes me feel like I have an edge over the rest of these fans -- and yet I'm glad that Jackson has attracted their attentions so that LotR can have a more diverse range of devotees.