What do you think of the Bakshi cartoon?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

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.

[skip spence]

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.

[ArathornJax]

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.

[Morthoron]

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.

[Sauron the White]

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

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.

[A Little Green]

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... ), 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!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

. . . 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. . . .

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.