What do you think of the Bakshi cartoon?

[Aaron]

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Aaron

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.

[Sauron the White]

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

*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.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Its the singer - not the song.

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.

[Sauron the White]

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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. .

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

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

*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.

[Makar]

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?