LOTR 1978 version

I currently am watching this on sky+ (it was on scfy the other day!) I've got to Rivendell and no further, but am watching it as I haven't before. I know this is cartoon is supposed to be PJ's intro to LOTR and it struck me how many of the images from this are in his films too (I have memories of the white horses so must of seen the cartoon in the past), the images of the hobbits below the tree roots hiding from the black rider, the horse chase, aspects of the bree scenes are very similar to my eyes. Now is this just because there are both true to the book and these are the only ways to show these scenes, did PJ conciously play homage, or has this earlier source remained with him so strongly that he unintentionally recreated them himself? Equally do you think the fact that this film was his first contact with the books had an impact on how he sees the story, (the often discussed changes that he felt necessary to make the story work?) and is so was this impact positive or negative?

I've often thought the same thing! I wouldn't put playgerism past a film director, but I think it's just similar interpretations of the story, perhaps both were based off of some pictures or interviews or something.

Tinuviel wrote:I've often thought the same thing! I wouldn't put playgerism past a film director, but I think it's just similar interpretations of the story, perhaps both were based off of some pictures or interviews or something.

I think that is definately possible, partly from the images that tolkiens writing itself conjures and as you say the extensvie art surrounding these books

Its plagarism, which PJ denies, as I remeber he claims only the shot of Proudfoot, saying his name at Bilbos Party, is an exact copy- but thats clearly rubbish. The black rider scene is too similar- in both they hide beneath the roots of a tree on the road embankment- PJ cannot claim inspiration from the book, where only Frodo sees the Rider and is lying down in long grass, the other two are behiind roots but just the roots of the trees edging the road not under them.
There are a host of shots, as well as those you mention there are similar shots in angle of Boromir fighting the watcher in the water, the shot as they run by the pillars in Moria. Even Boromirs death scene.
Despite all the flaws of the 1978 film I still think the script is better than PJ's by quite a bit.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its plagarism, which PJ denies, as I remeber he claims only the shot of Proudfoot, saying his name at Bilbos Party, is an exact copy- but thats clearly rubbish.

I don't think it's plagiarism to recreate a few shots from a movie that has been influential on a director, and in any event, PJ has never said he only borrowed the Proudfoot shot. The Black Rider scene is widely recognized as another of his homages to Bakshi and I don't recall PJ ever denying that (or any others). He's been quite open about the effect Bakshi's film had on him.

Despite all the flaws of the 1978 film I still think the script is better than PJ's by quite a bit.

I'm afraid I don't remember the script too well because I was distracted by the horrible, jarring visuals, music, voice acting, stilted narration, clumsy storytelling, etc.

Ignore the visuals, ignore the voice acting Eldo and just pay sole attention to the script in this and I will see you on the other side!



First thing is given PJ's version of Fellowship is at least twice the length of the same stroy in the animated version its amazing, given that, that they get so muchof Tolkiens key dialogue int it- and not nasty rewritten Tolkien like PJ presents us with but the genuine article. Despit relocating Gandlaf and Frodo's conversation it is closer to the book version in terms of dialogue than PJ gets anywhere near.

Second- the Saruman scene. Look how many differen concepts they retain fromthe book here that PJ dropped- the Many Colours ascpect, the excellent dialogue "Does that displease you?", Wormtongue being at Isengard
Yes its economic, it has to be for the films length and yet it still retains m ore of the original scene than PJ does in twice the time (granted mostly wasted on a terrible fight).

Third- Merry and Pippin. One line they do it in. One line! Gandalf says "Tell everyone you are moving away, perhaps to live in Bucklebury with those cousins of yours, Merry and Pippin." One line to give the viewer the cover story for how Frodo slips away without causing a huge fuss.

Fourth- Merry and Pippin- by putting the Conspiracy Unmasked bit on the road after the Balck Rider they manage to bother to tell the viewer what Pippin and Merry are doing on this journey at all- something PJ doesn;t seem to think matters and so doesn't even mention. They are just there.

And on a personnal note regarding the animation I like a lot of it, I particularly like how they portray the Black Riders as a literal twisted thing, the meaning of the word wraith. I found it particulary effective watching this as a youngster and its still disturbing ho they move today, a much braver and in my view more effective creepiness than what PJ did in the same scene.

In many ways I would much rather have had PJ's cast and art direction with this script than what we actually got.

"In many ways I would much rather have had PJ's cast and art direction with this script than what we actually got."
I agree with you there!

I watched this after many years of not wanting to face it. I found it remarkable in many ways. In many ways an artful and respectful effort, methinks.

I'm afraid I hate this far more than PJ's for historical reasons, though I've tried to make my peace with it in recent years.

I went to great effort to watch it in the theater when it first came out. After 15 minutes the audience started walking out in ones and twos. By the end, only a few of us hardcore Tolkien fans were left in the theater, and we were shouting curses. (How dare he cut out Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights!!!! )

It was such a bomb commercially that the 2nd part was never made. It suffered the fatal flaw that people who hadn't read the books couldn't follow the story, or just didn't care about the characters, and people who loved the books hated the way he'd butchered Tolkien's beautifully crafted world.

Petty has shown what an influence Bakshi's LotR had on PJ's FotR. It's an interesting curiosity, but I'd be pretty cautious about recommending it to somebody who was just getting interested in Tolkien for fear of turning them off, so I guess that's 'thumbs down' from me......

I find myself quite forgiving. PJ used state of art stuff to 'bolster' his movies, but it was used for evil purposes - as if PJ's script or his innovations could ever 'bolster', Tolkien. But I found Bakshi's state of the art (and sheer Artinesss) kind of appealing for some reason. He doesn't seem - on first watch - to invent as much as PJ and the Coven did. All the different animation-types I found curiously interesting too. Much prefer Galadriel in this too, though I think more realistic animation of how she looked would have been better. She didn't have skyrockets coming out her eyes which was a plus for me. She was very down home in a High Elven way. Hard to explain. Some of the animation stills are really captivating. Queer business. The non-Tolkien fans who walked out on you David? Well - GOOD! Don't need 'em. Plenty of diehards to go around. Anyway, not everyone deserves Tolkien - even Tolkien served in a very irregular dish.

I agree that there are moments of brilliance, and some of the still are magical. But didn't you get the feeling that many of the scenes were last minute efforts, and that the whole thing had been chopped together with kitchen knives at the night before? Maybe some of that was more obvious on the big screen, I don't know. The orcs though....what did you think of the orcs....honestly?

I don't quite know what to make of the orcs myself.

And the cutting (roughly) with kinives is a good description, methinks. Still, it all has an arty farty quality that I like. And me a Purist! Go figure!

I note the Boromir parts of the story still make me catch my breath. PJ couldn't wreck it. Nor could Bakshi. Has ever a failed genuinely secondary character's story arc held me so much in it's thrall? (No, in case you don't know). Weird! (Maybe it's linked to the fact that every character Tolkien invented was real the minute he/she/it appeared!)

I reckon that if I began taking the right kinds of drugs, Bakshi's LotR would become a Cult Classic for me. As it is, I find it funky and interesting. Flawed, yes. As Tolkien would want it, no. Curious, yes. Out-there, yes. Pleasing... in most facets... for various reasons (not all to do with solid film making)... err.. yes... yes...YES!

[insert smart comment with interesting viewpoints on the Bakshi version of LOTR while compare it to PJ's version]

[I might just do that, Norc - but I think it only fair to let David have another turn first... ]

{{{Oh Norc - you, of course, are free to post just such an insertion if you want. }}}

Its a strange film and no mistake.
The animation style is kind of a work in progress in need of a lot of progress- it got it mind as he'd pefected his technique by Fire and Ice.
Its main problem is its all just so squeezed. I have a huge deal of admiration for the script writer who is asked to the imposible (cram 1.5 books into one 2hour film) and who nearly pulls it off. I think he did a remarkable job given that restriction. And whilst the dialogue is abridged at leasts it abridgd Tolkien not some pseudo post modern nonsense.


One of my favourite bits fro Fire and Ice- loved this especially when I was a teenager. At its best Bakshi's animation is up there witthe best in my view, just a pity in is LotR's it often doesn't quite technically work.

As I said in my first post, I've long since tried to make my peace with it. I was even excited to buy a copy of it on VHS at a yard sale for 25 cents several years ago. Now I try to give it credit for what it does right, (or even attempts to do right), and politely look away when it belches, farts and scratches its groin. (I try to give Jackson's LotR the same coutesy BTW).

Tolkien's Boromir story does ring through strongly in both versions, in my opinion, though in my head I can still hear the outraged BOOOO's of the audience when he came on screen in a silly viking Halloween costume Can you imagine what the second part would have looked like if all Gondorians wore silly viking costumes?

The one sin I can't forgive him for though, is a sin of omission. By not soldiering on and finishing the story he started, he left the door wide open for the worst abomination ever committed against JRRT, the Rankin Bass animated RotK!

I have never seen the 'sequel' oddly enough.

For me where Bakshi scores over PJ is in the script and dialogue, truncated to hell as it is in less than half the time it still uses more Tolkien dialogue than PJ does in his entire trilogy.
And the Bakshi's version doesnt make a meal and a cock up out of simple things like Balin in Moria. I still dont know how PJ managed to muddy that to hell when its so straight forward. But its a classic comparison between the treatment of the source between the two versions.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I have never seen the 'sequel' oddly enough.

You need to watch this, if only to test the Mk II Crabbitmeter.

I'm of two minds on the Tolkien dialog. Yes, it's in there, but it often rushes by so fast that can't be appreciated. And if it can't be appreciated what's the point?

Pettytyrant101 wrote: make a meal and a cock up

This is why learning languages is so fun - it's an endless process, and even after studying English for 14 years, new expressions like that pop up out of nowhere

It's been a while since I've seen Bakshi's film but it probably does include more genuine Tolkien dialogue than PJ's version. However, I don't care. PJ and the Coven themselves often made the mistake of thinking that using an exact line (either in the proper context or not) was sufficient to constitute faithfulness even when they changed the overall structure of the story (or just specific scenes). Bakshi's film is so rushed that the story doesn't have time to develop in a satisfying manner, and very little in the second half is properly introduced or explained. When the film fails to tell Tolkien's story, no amount of individual lines will salvage its supposed faithfulness, much less its quality. Not to mention that the films fails even harder by every other measure of quality than the script.

I'm willing to criticize PJ for plenty of his changes, but at least he made a film that works as a film. Bakshi's film falls apart under its own weight so I don't see the point in trying to compare it to PJ. Ideally I'd have liked to see a film that worked as a film while also sticking closer to the book than PJ did (I think this is quite possible) but Bakshi is not the place to look for that. That's my two cents.

With that said, the Rankin/Bass ROTK is still on its own special level of awfulness. At least Bakshi tried.

I found RotK peculiar to say the least. I watched it for about 15 minutes and gave up - though I had just watched LotR, so I was pushing it a bit. Even Bakshi's The Hobbit was a bit piecemeal. Queer business all three movies. But they still - overall - don't offend me as much as PJ's version for some reason.

As to the Ice Thingee, Petty - I know why a teenage boy woud like what you posted. A 53 year old teenager still has an eye for that kind of animation!

Orwell wrote:

As to the Ice Thingee, Petty - I know why a teenage boy woud like what you posted. A 53 year old teenager still has an eye for that kind of animation!

That's exactly what Bakshi made his reputation with on Fritz the Cat. I'm sure his fans were expecting bouncy bits in LotR as well.

Eldo I largely agree about th Bakshi script- the reason I think it is nowhere near as offensive as PJ's script is its not the scriptwriters fault.
Given the time constraint I think they did an astonishing job of getting in as much as they did, yes because of those constraints it can never fully work or be satisfactory but its a valiant attempt to get Tolkien in there.
PJ's is not. He does have the time, he is not constrained, if the Baskhi script had the time PJ's did I dont think there would be any competion. It would kick PJ's all over the place.
So PJ I can hold to blame, the script writer of Bakshi I can't- they did a good job in the circumstances, PJ did not in his circumstances. For me thats the main difference when comparing the two.

Maybe I should watch the movie again since it's been a number of years, but I don't generally like to credit movies for what they tried to be when they fail so spectacularly. I agree that the scriptwriter of Bakshi's film does not bear the brunt of the blame for the gigantic mess that was Bakshi's film, but I have a hard time making a judgement about what the script could have been like. I do think that they tried to stick closer to Tolkien's story than PJ did, and I suppose they deserve credit for that, but I also don't think that the script works well for an onstensibly stand-alone film. Some individual scenes may have been handled well (again, it's been a while since I saw the film) but I recall being baffled at the path Bakshi's story had taken.

PJ and the Coven's scripts (for all their flaws, and there are many even if you don't mind changes from the book) works in the sort of film PJ was making, which of course was not one that made faithfulness to Tolkien a prime virtue. While it might not have been Bakshi's screenwriter's fault that he or she had to work in such conditions, I'll at least give PJ's films the credit of having screenplays that can stand on their own, even if they do introduce plot holes and take lazy storytelling shortcuts at times. They at least make sense as an overall story, and many of the filmic criticisms that can be applied to PJ (I'm not sure about the adaptation criticisms) can be applied to Bakshi as well.

You maybe should watch it again I thik judging on your comments. I can think of several individual senes it does better. Most notably of the top of my head the scens following Caradhras where they discuss the route ahead.