Re: Ralph Bakshi version

by Eldorion Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:54 am

RIP Saul Zaentz, rights-holder to LOTR, co-rights holder to The Hobbit, and producer of the Bakshi film (among many other, non-Tolkienian accomplishments).

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/oscar-winning-producer-saul-zaentz-dies-at-92-1201025366/

by bungobaggins Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:06 am

RIP :'(

He produced Amadeus, one of the greatest films ever made.

by RA Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:28 am

A sad day.

by azriel Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:59 pm

Its always a sad day when anything or anyone with creative vision leaves us.

by malickfan Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:31 pm

Saw these linked on Reddit:

http://io9.com/5841811/absolutely-stunning-concept-art-from-ralph-bakshis-animated-lord-of-the-rings

http://io9.com/watch-gandalf-battle-the-balrog-in-this-found-lord-of-t-1549473281?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:58 am

The pics are rather nice, if some of them are not exactly Tolkien to my mind. But the style difference between the recap scene with the Balrog fight and the rest of the film is huge! Shocked

That looks more like Don Bluth's work.

by Eldorion Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:19 am

That's not a balrog. Where are its slippers?! Mad

by Radaghast Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:32 am

LOL.

And when did they teleport to another dimension Question

by bungobaggins Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:38 am

Some interesting images, but I'm not sure what some things are supposed to be (e.g. that creature with seven eyes). I would hate to see another live action LOTR, but I don't think I'd mind seeing another non-computer animated version.

by Forest Shepherd Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:04 pm

I believe that the title is more an exorcize in hyperbole than anything else: it's an attempt to attract mouse-clickers to read it.
The actual art-work is, first of all, a very small collection, and second, far to incongruous even within itself to be impressive. And sure, we all know by now that Peter Jackson and his crew borrowed heavily from Bakshi's work, but this doesn't elevate this concept art beyond a funky-looking DnD-inspired second tier of artwork.

by Eldorion Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:50 pm

It's the blogosphere. Everything has to be jaw-droppingly amazing or its not worth clicking on. Rolling Eyes

Anyway, I've never been impressed by anything about Bakshi's LOTR, and I'm rather baffled by the insistence in some corners of fandom that it's a good movie, or a "valiant attempt" at adapting the book, or an "experimental" film.

by RA Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:52 pm

It's true what they say about how no visual adaptation will truly capture what the reader has in their mind's eye - after seeing those pictures though, I'm wondering if I read a different book than everyone else Laughing

by RA Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:54 pm

Eldorion wrote:Anyway, I've never been impressed by anything about Bakshi's LOTR, and I'm rather baffled by the insistence in some corners of fandom that it's a good movie, or a "valiant attempt" at adapting the book, or an "experimental" film.

It is a valiant film that's very experimental. Stylistic even, but we can diminish the effects of it.

by Eldorion Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:59 pm

The part that I see most commonly credited as "experimental" is the use of shading instead of animation in large sections of the film, but that was only because Bakshi ran out of money. I'm not going to give the director credit for failing to manage his budget, especially not when the result looks like someone vomited over the negatives. Razz

by David H Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:27 pm

I'm OK with describing it as "experimental"as long as that's understood to mean,
"I don't know what I'm doing, but what have I got to lose? Shrugging

"

by Eldorion Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:02 pm

It's hard to argue with that description. Laughing

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:55 pm

If its script, based on how it is presented in the films, was given the time and budget of Pj's script- it would piss all over PJ's from a great height in that department.

The only real problem with the Bakshi films script is that its over truncated for time and budget- but the standard of what is there, compared to the comparable scenes in PJ's is miles and miles better.

by Eldorion Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:38 pm

Has the original (pre-alleged budgetary cutting) script of Bakshi's film ever been made public?

Because I shudder to imagine what you'd say, Petty, if PJ had included stuff like Saruman destroying the wall of the Hornburg with Magic Missile, just to pick one example off the top of my head. Razz

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:00 pm

One of those bits we will probably never know if it was budget constraints, time constraints or just a bad design decision.

Like a lot of the Bakshi version its a lot better if you watch it by not actually looking at the screen. Very Happy

by Eldorion Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:06 pm

I don't think I've ever seen you this understanding and generous in your interpretations of PJ's films. Laughing

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:08 pm

That because I know PJ not only meant it to be the way it is, but it would have been 100 times worse if at the time he thought he could get away with the sort of pish he has filled Th with.

by Eldorion Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:11 pm

I see where you're coming from, but I feel that if you look at the films that were actually made, regardless of the directors' intentions, PJ's films (especially FOTR) are better by just about every standard. Even if I agreed that Bakshi's script was faithful to the book, it has a ton of glaring problems that the FOTR script does not. And even though the quality of the writing in the latter two films gets worse (I don't think it's on Bakshi's level, but I can see how some would disagree), everything else about the films is still far superior.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:12 pm

For me all thats superior is the visuals. And the words mean more to me than they do.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:20 pm

Perhaps a better way to explain it would be that the reason I am a Tolkien fan at all is that I love how he uses language, how he constructs, how his dialogue functions. I love the subtly, I love the word games, I love the attention to detail.

So the main thing I love about Tolkien is almost entirely absent from the PJ version.

Whereas whist Bakshi is horribly flawed and often ugly as sin, I can still get more pleasure out of hearing the Tolkien dialogue spoken than I can from any amount of pretties in PJ's.

PJ's is almost devoid of the one thing I love most about Tolkiens writing- the writing.

by halfwise Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:28 pm

Not that I've endured Bakshi's version enough times to remember it clearly (I lasted through one showing), but I don't remember being struck by how close it was to Tolkien's writing.

(Eldo and I may disagree on the artistic merits of hip-hop, but I think we agree on Bakshi.)