I created this board so that we can have a forum to trash this horrible film. I haven't seen it in a long while, but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would like nothing better than to rip this travesty apart.

Why is there no dialogue for the last half hour or so?

Why is the animation so crappy?

Why does the film end with the Battle of Helm's Deep?

Well, I'll try to think of some nits later.

Why does the film end with the Battle of Helm's Deep?

Because Bakshi was going to make a second film, but dropped the idea after this one bombed horribly.

Ok, but why do they act like Sauron has been vanquished at the end of the battle?

I actually kind of liked it! Of course, I saw it before having read the books, so I had no preconceptions to destroy. I saw the early version of the film where the Battle of Helm's Deep ended, then they cut back to the scene where Frodo and Sam are walking away -- Frodo says something and Sam replies "Yet we may, Mr. Frodo. Yet we may!" And that was it! Roll credits! This was such an inconclusive ending, they eventually switched the scenes so it now ends with the battle (a minor sense of closure, at least).

I have since read the books, and was not pleased at being stuck with Bakshi's imagery instead of my own. I liked some of the rotoscoping, mainly of the main characters (I even have a couple cels from the movie!). But yes, near the end the budget-saving is obvious. ("Hey, let's dress these guys up in costumes, film them, then just color the silhouettes all in black and draw in a couple flaring eyes, and we got Orcs!")

Ralph Bakshi's (thankfully) unfinished animated adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic. I could go on for pages about this movie (nearly all of it bad), but I'll leave some nits for the rest of you! I'm sure plenty of you are Tolkien fanatics (like me) who want to join in the fun... :-)

A few nits to get things rolling:

The opening narration says that Sauron learned Ring-making from the Elves (not true -- he taught them how to do it while attempting to corrupt them). It also says that the Last Alliance was defeated. Wouldn't it be just as easy to say that "The Last Alliance defeated Sauron, but he would not be vanquished forever" or some such thing?

Gandalf asks Frodo to throw the Ring into the fire to see if the inscription shows up. Once he takes the Ring out of the fire, though, they never bother looking for the inscription.

I'm pretty sure Gandalf says "Methlon" at the gates of Moria, instead of "Mellon."

Watch Gandalf's cape when he appears to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli in Fangorn.

What's up with Saruman's fireballs? And why does he have such an annoying, croaky voice?

Pippin's hair seems to be missing its color throughout most of the Khazad-dum scene. At least, it was on the tape I saw.

Was anyone else disturbed by Strider's lack of pants? :-)

The final battle scene is horrendously confusing. I couldn't figure it out at all, and I knew what was supposed to be happening!

OK, it's your turn...

The final battle scene is horrendously confusing. I couldn't figure it out at all, and I knew what was supposed to be happening!

According to some ex-military friends of mine, that happens in real life.

I remember going to this movie as a teenager... All I remember is the line (in Westwood) was incredibly long...

According to some ex-military friends of mine, that happens in real life.

Yeah, but this is a MOVIE! Movies aren't like real life! :-)

I was really disappointed with this movie. The mixing of live action and animation just didn't work and the movie only covered half the whole story. Even within that span they cut out half of what took place, I know a second was planned but never happened. Why was that? I hope the new upcoming film is a lot better.

Someone's nitpicked this sad excuse for a film pretty heavily already. See http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/bakshi.htm .

Ok, but why do they act like Sauron has been vanquished at the end of the battle?

I wouldn't say that...if only because the ending was too abrupt to say anyone acted like anything at that point... :-)

Here's something I don't get. Why do the users of IMDB give this sick joke an average rating of six stars (out of ten)?

6 out of 10 is not exactly a ringing endorcement in my opinion. it's 60%, if I got that in a class It is a failing grade.

Well, it's now less than two months until The Fellowship of the Ring is released!

Now it's a mere three weeks!

If you just can't wait three weeks, though, I recommend the old Humphrey Bogart version. It's a bit short, but still good!
Warner Brothers' Lord of the Rings

Uh, guys, this board is for the Bakshi version. Jared and/or Sax, if you haven't made a board for the 2001 version, might I suggest you start one?

I request that Peter Jackson's film get its own board. However bad it may be, it does not deserev the insult of being grouped with Bashiki's!

I'm pretty sure Gandalf says "Methlon" at the gates of Moria, instead of "Mellon." - Lea Frost

I'm sure too.

The final battle scene is horrendously confusing. I couldn't figure it out at all, and I knew what was supposed to be happening! - Lea Frost

It goes something like this - the Riders of Rohan (and principals) stand between the battlements. Then the wraith-like Orcs enter in vast numbers, and start killing the Riders with arrows. The principals and Riders escape into caves, the Orcs chasing them all the way. A while later, the Orcs are trying to break their way in, and the good guys ride out, and start attacking the Orcs (who, for some reason, have decided to be scared of them), Aragorn even wrestles one to the ground at one point. Then they slowly realise they are outnumbered (there are considerably less Riders than there were before, despite the fact that they have been winning) and they stand, awaiting their fate. Just as the Orcs have closed in on them, Theoden screams for Gandalf (in a surprisingly high voice) and Gandalf rides in, with colored lights behind him, and cheerfully stabs a few orcs and tosses his sword up in the air.

Ok, but why do they act like Sauron has been vanquished at the end of the battle? - Josh G.
I wouldn't say that...if only because the ending was too abrupt to say anyone acted like anything at that point... :-) - Lea Frost

Well, the narrator does inexplicably say "And so, the forces of evil were vanquished forever from middle earth" despite the fact that Frodo and Sam are still ferrying the Ring to Mordor, and that the narrator himself promises a Part Two.

I agree with what the other site says about it being in three parts- the first part is quite a good attempt to tell the story, after Rivendell they're basically showing the highlights, and after the breaking of the fellowship it is little more than a collection of fight scenes against a wash-of-color with the figures being photographs with the color drained out. (except for the scenes with Gollum, which were pretty good)

The Nazgul did look like wraiths, and the scenes in Bree and Weathertop were a good way of illustrating their effect. However, by the flight to the ford, it just becomes tedious. Also, the Orcs are done in exactly the same way, and often when there are other characters in a scene with Orcs, they end up looking like that as well. (During the scene with Merry, Pippin, Boromir and the Orcs, when we get a close-up of a principal they look like they usually do, when we see them with Orcs they are colored in and filmed very differently)

The opening scene was very well done, with the black shadows on red (although by the end of the film, there will be enough black shadows on red used at inappropriate moments).

Ah, yes, the Aruman problem. Gandalf tells Frodo he must speak with Aruman, the head of the wizards. Then he rides off and meets... Saruman. If you hadn't read the book, this would be completely and utterly confusing. And they switch back and forth between names the rest of the film. Sometimes they use both names within one scene.

It has its strengths, though. For one thing, it tells the story of the Lord of the Rings (well, an abridged version of the first half). The party scene is fairly done, with the two things people look out for (Bilbo's "half and half" line and the "irritated" Proudfoot) and the scene with the first Nazgul is quite well done.

Gandalf frequently capers around, and seems to think he should act out every word he says. He does an inordinate amount of finger-pointing, and after Pippin drops the stone, he not only calls him a "Fool of a Took" but then rants off into the background, rambling "Fool of a Pippin!" and other things.

The two biggest problems would have to be the depiction of Sam (a misshapen idiot) and the depiction of *shudder* Treebeard, who has to be seen to be believed. The description, "an anthropomorphised pig/tree comblination" is quite an accurate way of describing him, though I say so myself.

After Gandalf shows up dressed in white, he rides off to Edoras with Aragorn and buddies. As they enter Meduseld, Gandalf is back in his old bluish robes. As they approach Theoden's chair, he's back in white. Boy, what a boring nit! But it's the only new one I could find, unless I actually pay attention to this cartoon.

I can't answer the 1st question. Director's choice? Why is the animation "crappy?" That has been answered in some part. It is the style of animation, which is called rotoscoping, or animating over live action. The 3rd question is answered correctly. But, having said that . . .
I actually liked it alot, and this is from someone who had read the books first. I do see the faults in it, more clearly after seeing the live action version, then when I first saw the animated version, but for all the criticism this one has received, and all the praise the live action one has received, this one gets alot of things right, that the live action one gets wrong. From all the fight scenes, which are closer to the ones in the book, then the ones in the live action version to how the ring came to be on Frodo's finger in the inn in Bree to how Gandalf became imprisioned in Isengard.
Some final comments: yes, a movie isn't real life, but they should approximate real life (IMHO) And that is what Bakshi understood, and Jackson didn't or doesn't. For example: the meeting in the film between Legolas and Aragon. Neither film version is totally correct, I believe. (If the live action version is more correct, then it is still incorrect.) Because Bakshi had a better understanding of how people related to each other--outside of the author--in the days of Middle Earth, then did or does Jackson.
The website listed above is a good source of nits about the film (though some nits listed are not really nits, but that is a subject for another day.) But as a personal preference, I much prefered the music in the animated version--I have the soundtrack for it--then I did the music in the live action version. As the music in the animated version was better at setting the proper mood. (IMHO) Enjoy!

Elmer Sackvill-Baggins... sorry, Sackman... I suggest you write a review of the live-action film in the style of the "website listed above"... it would be interesting to read.

I already have to some extent. See the thread for "Lord of the Rings" at this site or at www.badmovies.org. As for the Sackville-Bagginses, Tolkien made that into a great joke--the S.B.'s. I was sorry not to see it in the live action version, and if I did, I am sorry I missed it.

Elmer, I'm not sure how the cartoon could be remotely considered better in terms of "getting things right."

How about the fact that they couldn't seem to decide whether it was "Saruman" or "Aruman"? Or the fact that Orthanc looks entirely different from its description? Or the dress and appearances of Aragorn and Boromir, among others? Or the Black Riders wearing brown robes earlier in the story? Or the depiction of the Balrog (which looks like a monkey with bat wings)?

Now, the movie is not nearly as bad as I had remembered its being, but it's by no means a great film, unlike the live-action version. It's terribly low-key, but I'll grant that they portray Gollum very well.

As for the score, Rosenman did a good job, but I find that he wrote music that was too avant-garde for ths story. Contrast that with Shore's grand, epic, BIG score, which perfectly captures the essence of the film - and book.

Or the Black Riders wearing brown robes earlier in the story? - Josh G.

Yes, they look like Jawas, but half way through the Bree scene they switch to looking like Tusken Raiders and become live-action instead of animated... for no reason.

Or the depiction of the Balrog (which looks like a monkey with bat wings)? - Josh G.

It looked considerably more like a lion than a monkey.

Pippin's hair seems to be missing its color throughout most of the Khazad-dum scene. At least, it was on the tape I saw. - Lea Frost

Just when he drops the stone down the well. His hair is much lighter than it should be, it's usually darker than Merry. Actually, throughout the film M and P are inconsistently drawn - and appear to switch places during the scene with Grishnakh.

Oh, yeah... the music played while Gandalf hacks his way through the orcs at the end sounds almost identical to the music over the end credits of ST4: The Voyage Home. And there's a reason for that. Both the scores were done by Leonard Rosenman.

It looked considerably more like a lion than a monkey.

Oh, so much for my memory...

It looked silly either way.

This movie is utterly laughable. Not, however, as uttely, inconcievably laughable as the Rankin/Bass "version" of The Return of the King which actually makes this look to be the better film. Of the loose trilogy of animated Tolien films, this ranks number two I think. But a very very bad number two.

1. The Hobbit was done quite well, I thought, preserving much of the story and dialogue, and adequatley animating the characters, though the "Goblin Gum" song, the very look of the goblins, and the elves are the biggest drawbacks. I loved the Riddles in the Dark scene, and (hopefully until TTT in december) think that their Golumn is PERFECTLY done. I'd say that this film is a modest achievement, which could have been much better with a longer running time.

2. The Lord of the Rings kind of told the story of the first half of the book. That is the only good thing that can be said about it, really. Among it's worst points are the following
1.) The portrayl of the Riders in Black as having severe limps.
2.) The portrayl of sam as a bumbling fool, and perhaps a homosexual (not that i have a problem with gay people, but i REALLY don't think that's what Tolkien intended).
3.)The pronunciation of "Saruman" as "Aruman." And Why the hell does Saruman the White wear a red coat? If they were going to do Saruman of many colors, then why not have his robe change into many different colors?
4.) The balrog, and indeed the entire Moria sequence is laughable at best. Rather than create suspense or fear in the audience, or even an ounce of sadness with the "death" of Gandalf, Bakshi, as usual, made me laugh heartilly.
5.) The rotoscoping, and foolish tinting was quite bad, and thoroughly distracting. Especially when we get to Helm's Deep.
6.) So we see whole twenty seconds of the most foolish looking Treebeard imaginable, eh? Now I may not be of a very Ent-like disposition, but I think that's a TAD BIT too hasty.
7.) And my favorite part, the end, where Gandalf throws his sword into the air for no reason and bassically says "The End." Perhaps a more Beverly Hillbilies style ending would have been better, with all the characters in one wideshot, and Eomer saying "Ya'll come back now, ya hear?"

3.) The Return of the King. Where to start? Though they claim that this film is based on the "original versions of The Hobbit and the Return of the King," I don't believe it. It seems far more likley to me that theis piece of trash was based on either Rankin, or Bass's acid induced hallucinations of The Hobbit and The Return of the King. As with The Lord of the Rings, I will list my complaints/nits:
1.) There must be something around twenty-six dream sequences in this movie, leaving around two minutes of running time for scenes which Tolkien actually wrote. The worst (to be honest, I've TRIED not to remember them all) are the indigestible "Samwise the Strong" sequence, and the detestable scene where an orc smiles and waves at Sam and Frodo.
2.) I never knew that the Nazgul were skeltons that flew on winged horses that GALLOP through the air.
3.) I also had no idea that Pippin had a ten foot long neck, and spoke with an American accent, or that his character was totally one-dimensional.
4.)On that token, how many SECONDS is Meriadoc in the film? Thirty? Forty? Hardly a character at all.
5.) So denethor was a crippled, old, Charles Montgomery Burns, eh? I did not know that. And all he has to do is appearantly stand BEHIND a fire, and that will kill him? Whoa.
6.) Gandalf the White, instead of being the great leader of men that he is in the book, is here a self-pitying cry-baby, who sits slumped over in a tower while the Battle of the Pellenor is raging around him. Oh woe is him.
7.) The songs must be heard to be believed, but I don't suggest that you try if you have any heart conditions of any kind. "Where there's a whip, there's a way?" My God.

So, as you can see, the Animated Trilogy of JRR Tolkien is rife with foolishness, and produced one good entry, one bad entry, and one let's-buy-each-copy-of-this-film-and buy-the-rights-and-set it-all-on-fire entry. I thank Peter Jackson for giving me what I needed for a Tolkien film Praise him with Great Praise!

What's up with Saruman's fireballs? - Lea Frost

I assume you mean those comet things at Helm's Deep. I suspect that this was the result of a writers' problem of which the effects are often seen in Star Trek. Originally it was gunpowder or somesuch, an interesting concept similar to the Oliphaunt (what is familiar to us is not familiar to them, and even makes us see such things in a new light). However, Bakshi or whoever evidently thought that was out-of-place for a fantasy/mythological film, so in order to show it was fantasy it had to be "magical" instead. I suspect this will be the same in PJ's film, sad to say.

And why does he have such an annoying, croaky voice? - Lea Frost

Because he's an animated villain, and all animated villains must make the audience want to clear their throats. This, of course, doesn't explain why Aragorn has such a similar voice. (listen to when Aragorn inexplicably refers to Edoras as "Adore us", `aruman gets the next line. I can hardly tell it's someone else talking.)

The Lord of the Rings kind of told the story of the first half of the book. That is the only good thing that can be said about it, really. - Wes Collins

A little hard - Gollum was pretty good, both visually and vocally. My sister and I cheer whenever he appears when we watch the film. He's probably the best thing about it, even though by that point the writers had given up on the plot and seemed to be working from (bad) memory.

Oh, that reminds me. Anyone else feel like the script for this film was being written as it was being animated (and voiced). Or that there was no script and they just winged it, with a copy of LotR for occasional reference?

And my favorite part, the end, where Gandalf throws his sword into the air for no reason and bassically says "The End." - Wes Collins

Don't forget him running through the orcs like a madman, and hacking two screaming orcs as they plunge over the camera, blood splurting all over. Which looks just silly. And he's so crazed he can't even hit any orcs for the first several seconds, he just swipes around blindly.

LOL on the Rankin Bass (anyone else think "stinking fish" whenever they hear that name) RotK. Reminds me of the hideous "Journey Back to Oz" cartoon. You must make a site about it based on the one mentioned above about Bakshi's film. It makes that look reasonable.

I've made a new board for the monstrosity known as "Fro-DOOOOE and the NOOOOOIIIIIN fingrrrs, and the Ring of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM. Why does he have NOOOOOOOOOIIIIIN fingrrrs, where is the Ring of DOOOOOOOOOOOM?" Shudder.

Anyway, I can't say which is worse, but they're both pretty rancid.

Interesting that the new movie ends the same way that Bakshi's did originally, with the last shot of Frodo and Sam, Sam saying that "we yet may see them again". As noted above, Bakshi's ending was re-edited to end with the battle for a sense of closure. Is it that audiences have matured, or just that they expect everyone knows there will be another movie?

Kira: that song (by Glenn Yarborough of "Honey" fame) was the only thing I remembered about seeing Rankin-Bass' Return of the King (and not in a good way.) I recall thinking, "Why are they wasting time on a song, that wasn't even in the book, when they could be telling the story!"

Well, if audiences have matured, some critics haven't. Richard Roeper said that the movie lacked "closure," to which Ebert responded "It's a trilogy!"

In terms of "closure," Jackson's FOTR had just as much as, say, The Empire Strikes Back (only FOTR doesn't have silly comic relief inserted into the dramatic climax...).

What in the world could have given the film closure? That's pure foolishness. He's the same kind of person who would regard The Lord of the Rings as three books. It's one book. In two years, it will be one movie.

One nine-hour movie, that is.

When Bilbo disappears at the party, he disppears with `magical' special effects. The effects are not present when he reappears. That's all right, in the book Ganadalf supplied some effects to make Bilbo's disappearance seem less mysterious. However, when Frodo disappears in Bree he doesn't have the effects (all well and good) but when he reappears, he does!

Not only that, but the way Bilbo's disappearance and reappearance are depicted it looks like he teleported himself into Bag End.

A nine hour movie? Oh, I am hoping for MUCH more than that! Put all the cut scenes BACK in the movie, when it goes to DVD, you hear me, Peter Jackson!? And not the Phantom Menace way either, I mean put them back where they belong! Please?

I guess that they are going to put somewhere between 30 to 40 minutes of cut footage into the DVD. I don't know if it will be in the movie itself, or in it's own feature. I hope it is integrated into the movie.

Wrong version, guys. This board is for the Bakshi version.

Jake, maybe you should put "(Bakshi)" or "(1978)" into the title of this board?

Yes, I do realize that ScottN. I was responding to Josh G's post, which, although about the new version, was in response to other posts which led from the disturbing LotR to the good one.

Sure thing Scott.

I love going off on tangents...

Isengard in this film bears an unhealthy resemblance to the Emerald City gone evil in the animated film Journey back to Oz.

Isengard in this film bears an unhealthy resemblance to the Emerald City gone evil in the animated film Journey back to Oz.

If Gandalf wants to open the Moria gate so badly, it might help if he stops saying "Edro!" It didn't work the first time, pal. What makes you think it will work the tenth time?

As the Witchking first approaches Frodo at Weathertop, he has a long sword in either hand. The scene then cuts to Frodo. When it cuts back to the Nazgul, the sword in the Witchking's right hand is now a morgul-knife.

Speaking of Old Man Angmar, I always wondered why the nose-guard on his helm is shaped like a pig's snout.

It's no surprise the orcs lost the battle of Helm's Deep, with strategies like using battering rams against the wall when there is a perfectly bashable gate a few feet away! (I guess the background artists forgot to consult with the rest of the animation crew.)

Regarding the pig snout nose guard, it's probably because, unlike Jackson, Bakshi didn't bother to get a conceptual artist who knew his stuff.

I won't even bother trying to nitpick this film... someone's already done a pretty good job.

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

LOL hillarious!

Another conceptual art mistake, and a nit, sez I:

Rivendell is supposed to be a valley, as in riven-dell. So why does the painting show Elrond's house up on the mountain side?

A nit of continuity:

In the scene where Boromir tries to take the ring from Frodo, watch the moon. It's almost directly behind them no matter what angle they're being shown from.

One more thing, I think. As Merry and Pippen are trying to fight off the orcs that are about to capture them, at one point an orc on the left side of the scene seems to slide down the incline in a strange, skewed way. Not too notable, maybe, but weird.

OK, one more thing. Why does Gimli's axe look like something out of the Flintstones?

I just spotted something cool; not a nit per se, but perhaps a joke? Watch as Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are riding to Edoras. They pass by some very interesting landforms. I'm pretty sure I saw the Matterhorn, the Vasquez Rocks (from the Trek episode "Arena"), and Delicate Arch (from southern Utah).