Lord of the Rings Humour: Parodies, Satires and More [2]

yeah, it was kinda stupid xD i liked the elvish hotel though

Yeah, that was the one part that made me chuckle.

Anyone seen this all the way through?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1x3XkHs-BE
(LOTR Totally Screwed Up Overdub).
I watched the Council of Elrond scene "cause I'm lookin for Bilbo's bow, but he just sortah bobs a bit...but whoa, it's a little bit funny at times.

Actually I was watching through that trying to find the same scene after you mentioned in the other thread yesterday. I can only handle so much Bakshi in one sitting though, even with the comedy dub.

YES! I love the Completely Screwed Over Dub! It's my style of goofy humor.  

I love Frodo's rapping in Bree and his rap battle with Gollum.  

mmmmmm precious donuts *drools

 

Yavanna wrote:Anyone seen this all the way through?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1x3XkHs-BE
(LOTR Totally Screwed Up Overdub).
I watched the Council of Elrond scene "cause I'm lookin for Bilbo's bow, but he just sortah bobs a bit...but whoa, it's a little bit funny at times.

Oh. Oh my.
Thanks for sharing this!
7:00-7:20 made my day.

Also, 13:20 onward is delightfully surreal (only because I have no idea what Bakshi's version is actually like, but still.)

If nothing else, watching the beginning of that has alerted me to the fact that PJ totally ripped off Bakshi for his Hobbits-hiding-under-root shot from the first Nazgul encounter.

Oh, yes. There were setups too numerous to count where PJ blatantly ripped off Bakshi - from decor to camera angles and the set itself- gawww. lighting, you name it he stole it.
My gripe is that in some parts (for instance, the attack on Weathertop) that Bakshi had it down so poetically, so beautifully, that PJ could never top it - not even if he copied it directly. He did - but changed it in such a fashion as to make it less worthy - less meaningful, changing characters and their lines until it was just all a-muddle.
I can remember being stunned by Bakshi's Weathertop - Aragorn, visible even in the darkness caused by wearing the ring, the torches he waved at the Riders, and finally, discovering Frodo upon the ground in a heap, and cradling him in his arms, knowing full well what was about to happen. Even the snap he makes at Sam about doing something constructive to save Frodo instead of weeping - it was ALL PERFECT in Bakshi's version.
Oh.. I could go on, but I'm getting more and more upset over it. Heck...even the animated Hobbit stood up better than this new version...
Sorry for the rant everyone. I just get way too attached to my favorite characters.

Rant away Yavanna- I have always thought Bakshi got unfair stick because of the films animation style and the undeniably rushed nature of the story (particularly the second half) but does not get the credit he deserves for the stuff he got a hell of a lot better than PJ ever did.

And yes PJ ripped all sorts off- not just the BR scene, the lighting when Gandalf leaves for Orthanc in a very similar woodland, to the room Strider confronts Frodo in (which PJ seems to have built based on the animation), gates of Bree too, lots of shots from the Ford scene- just loads of stuff he blatantly nicked.

I did a comparative breakdown between the two versions, Bakshi and PJ a while ago, you can find it here if you are interested Yavanna-

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t165-bakshi-v-pj-a-contest-of-scripts?highlight=bakshi

Bakshi did a decent job of rotoscoping the first half of the film -- though he fell into some of the pitfalls that most attempts at rotoscoping do -- but the most memorable "visual style" of the films isn't even animation.  It's just live-action footage tinted a vomit color because Bakshi ran out of time and money before he could actually animate most of the movie.

And "undeniably rushed" is a very charitable way of describing Bakshi's script. I don't think it really matters that he stuck closer to the book in certain places because he failed to tell a coherent story, which is a more fundamental requirement of adaptational screenwriting. IMO.

In certain places- try throughout, start to finish.

Yes it is too rushed (I wisj he had just done Fellowship myself), but I would rather have a version of the book I recognise as such with chunks rushed over and huriedly explained than have to watch acres of made up painful Non-Tolkien nonsense replacing the book story.
Horses for courses I suppose Eldo.

Eldorion wrote:

And "undeniably rushed" is a very charitable way of describing Bakshi's script.  I don't think it really matters that he stuck closer to the book in certain places because he failed to tell a coherent story, which is a more fundamental requirement of adaptational screenwriting.  IMO.

Cheers!  

Pity then Pj's version is not coherent in so many places either.
Still waiting on some PJ lover to explain the Gimli- 'roaring fires, meat of the bone' nonsense or whatany of that is supposed to mean or be saying- its the epitome of unclear scripting- a situation resolved by Bakhis using one line of book dialogue.

I think Gimli's roaring fires line fit in with the tone at that point in the movie since they weren't being chased by wargs or anything, but it made no sense that Gimli would have no idea that something was greatly amiss in Moria. The two most mythic dwarf habitations would do a better job of communication, one would think, at least with Mirkwood much better under control than at the time of the Hobbit. But we only know that from the book: the movie wasn't assuming this level of knowledge from the viewer.

It was one of the deviations that didn't bother me so much. But I would have preferred to hear Gimli's Khazad-dum poem instead.

I think you misunderstand Halfy because you are bringing book knowledge to film.

Watch the sequence from Hollin to Moria, just as the film pesents it, paying particular attention to Gimli. what he expects and what the viewer is told (or not told) about Balin and Moria.

He alone expects it to find it full of happy cooking dwarves.
He appears to have no idea it is abandoned, or ever has been.
There is no mention anywhere in it that Balin only returned there recently and that he went missing.
Without bringing book knowledge to it there is no reason the viewer should not take Gimli at his word and likewise expect to see a place full of dwarves. After all no one corrects Gimli despite in PJ's at least Gandalf knowing it not to be true.
And this despite the fact the film has already, through Saruman and his big book of illustrated Middle Earth monsters, told us about the balrog in there.
Yet Gimli is still spouting this nonsense about meat off the bone and roaring fires to the hobbits as they physically walk through the door of Moria- at which point they find the bodies (which are clearly part mummified and very old) and starts wailing. (Why Gimli didnt think it odd the doors were shut and there were no dwarves there is another  atter)

Based on Gimlis expectations the natural conclusion a viewer will draw is that Moria has been recently attacked and all he dwarves Gimli expected to find killed, unfortunately the look and age of everything belies this, despite it being the natural conclusion the script makes you draw from Gimlis words. Whose bodies are it Gimli thinks he is wailing over in the film? I havent a clue, not from just watching the film, and nor could anyone else tell as the script is just totally confused on the issue.

The entire door bit, it being hidden, them not able to open it plus the physical appearance of the place all match the book- that its long abandoned, as does everyone elses dialogue- bar Gimli- he alone appears to have no idea about Moria whatsoever.

Taken in light of PJ's own version of history as presented in TH it makes even less sense. (Indeed any viewer who goes from watching Th to Lotr's is bound now to be even more struck by why Gimli appears not to know its abandoned when it was full of orcs in TH ,and to wonder why he doesnt know that his dad's mate Balin went back to reclaim it and is missing and has been for many years, even more confusing as this Gimli doesnt even seem to know it ever was abandoned in the first place, or about Durins bane)

Either film Gimli is some sort of dwarven simpelton and the Lonely Mountains village idiot or it just doesn't make any sense.

Yet Bakshi using one line, one, explains it adequately for a film audience to know what is happening "I will go with you, my cousin Balin led a company of dwarves there many years ago, there has been no word from them in all that time."

Its that simple to explain, yet PJ makes a complete arse of it spread across 30 minutes or more of film, and still doent explain it  at all.

Ask a non book reading film watcher who Balin is supposed to be and how old Moria is supposed to be and if it was recently or long ago abandoned?- if they have an  answer it will be guesswork based on the film as none of the information is present, and the info actually given is contradictory.

Its a mess, all over the place and without any coherence between characters.
Its almost like Giml is reading from a different script to everyone else that neither matches their words, or the visuals being presented (maybe he missed a rewrite or ten and everyone else was so confused by then no one noticed- I have a pet theory that PJ and the Coven planned to move Durin, and the Balrog attacking to FotR, then abandoned the idea but noone changed Gimlis script, just everyone elses, and thats why he doesnt know and expects it full of happy dwarves).

For me the Gimli/Balin/Moria question is one of the most mishandled, unnecessarily confusing bits of the script- and given how appalling I think the rest of the script is that gives you some idea of my crabbit at this- and it mainly makes me crabbit because as Bakshi proved, this should not be a problem at all and can be explained in a single line of dialogue.

I have puzzled over this for a long time and I still cant (a) make any sense of it and (b) have no idea what they were aiming for or what the change in Gimli's knowledge of Moria is supposed to be about- the 'why?' completely eludes me just as it does the why of changing TH opening lines.

nah the Gimli scene worked perfectly cinematically. It set up the shock of seeing Moria as a tomb. It made perfect sense.

Then please explain it to me Figgs- why does Gimli expect dwavres to be there and which dwarves?- where in the film does it explain about Balin and what he is doing there? Just to ask two pressing questions the script makes a complete arse off.

If you cant answer either question then it clearly does not make perfect sense, or any sense at all for that matter.

because the film doesnt need to explain about Balin. we dont know who he is at this point in the game. We would have needed a load of unecessary and slow explaining which would have ruined the tension of those scenes.

There are plenty of things in the movies that don't make sense (I'd probably use the Gandalf/Witch-king scene from ROTK as my go-to example rather than the Gimli thing, but to each his own ).  And most of these are the result of needless changes to the original story, I agree.  But there's a difference IMO between having individual scenes that don't make much sense (which is still undeniably flaw) and having an entire movie that doesn't make sense.  It is possible for someone with no prior knowledge of LOTR whatsoever to watch PJ's movies and understand what is going on and what the story is about.  They will come away with some misconceptions and there will probably be some confusing questions at the end, but the overall product is comprehensible.  Whereas with Bakshi, even most people who have read the book struggle to keep track of what is happening on screen most of the time.

Edit: I missed the last few posts in here before making this one.  I salute your exhaustive crabbitude about the changes to Moria, Petty, but I still stand by my comparative point.

We do need to know who he is, an entire scene is centred around his tomb.
We do need to know if Moria is an ancient abandoned realm or still supposed to be full of happy dwarves.

One line of dialogue as in Bakshi is all that is needed-"My cousin Balin led a company of dwarves there many years ago, there has been no word in all that time" or words to that effect.
Im sure they could have shaved the necessary seconds for it off the troll fight or the stupid collapsing bridge- I mean really Pj thought keeping GImli's dwarf tossing line more important than explaining the plot  
There is no excuse for it beyond atrocious writing.
What PJ presents is a mess which makes Gimli seem like a complete fool who knows nothing about his own race, or in fact his own family history. Or indeed his own life as he would have been alive and around when Balin and co went.

Eldorion wrote:There are plenty of things in the movies that don't make sense (I'd probably use the Gandalf/Witch-king scene from ROTK as my go-to example rather than the Gimli thing, but to each his own ).  And most of these are the result of needless changes to the original story, I agree.  But there's a difference IMO between having individual scenes that don't make much sense (which is still undeniably flaw) and having an entire movie that doesn't make sense.  It is possible for someone with no prior knowledge of LOTR whatsoever to watch PJ's movies and understand what is going on and what the story is about.  They will come away with some misconceptions and there will probably be some confusing questions at the end, but the overall product is comprehensible.  Whereas with Bakshi, even most people who have read the book struggle to keep track of what is happening on screen most of the time.

Edit: I missed the last few posts in here before making this one.  I salute your exhaustive crabbitude about the changes to Moria, Petty, but I still stand by my comparative point.

Why didn't they just fly the eagles to mount doom?? Hurr durr

Mr Figg had never read LOTR and he understood it all bless his cotton socks. I had to explain The Eye though, he called it the inflamed lady garden.  Thats Italians for you.

Then ask him to come on here and explain to me- cause as far as I can tell its a pigs ear of a section of film.