MovieChat Forums > The Lord of the Rings (1978) Discussion > Not Very Good...

Not Very Good...

posted 9 years ago by xerses13
33 replies | jump to latest

Saw this when it first came out back in '78'. Had read the books back in the '60s' and the articles in F.M. and Starlog heralding this movie version. Bakshi touting it was better then ANYTHING Disney had done. WELL, IT WAS NOT! This film did not past the 15" test, for that is when I looked at my watch and started a countdown for when it would end. Found it felt and looked like it was made on the cheap, just like WIZARDS. Rated IMDB****Four, now after Rewatching this morning on TCM see no need to alter that rating. Better to plough through the Books again or P.J.s' version then endure another watching of this.

[–] dslspiderballer 9 years ago

I agree. It has a huge cult following but i can't get over the rotoscope... They relied too much on it and so gitters a lot.. The whole time I'm thinking disney would have done a masterpeacie. It lacks appeal. I can see the potentual though.

[–] Bernnard_Black 9 years ago

There were parts of it I liked; in many ways it was more true to the books than the PJ films were. But yeah, the rotoscoping of anyone who wasn't a major character was just awful. The orcs in particular just looked like shadows; no detail at all.

Whores will have their trinkets.

[–] WeirdRaptor 9 years ago

in many ways it was more true to the books than the PJ films were

Just having more textually true is not necessarily keeping in the spirit of the work. A good chunk of Jackson's changes were entirely pragmatic.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xerses13 9 years ago

The_Rice_Psychiatrist: (')hours(")minutes a common usage. The overall animation was poor. Though it shows how desperate We all where for any suggestion of quality fantasy back then. Recently have just seen WIZARDS, which I have not seen since its original release. Found that even more boring.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xerses13 9 years ago

The_Rice_Psychiarist: You are to hard on yourself. Myself and my S.O. Ms. Xerses13 most likely have TWICE the film going experience. Being birthed during the early 1950s! At tactical and strategic advantage!

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 8 years ago

While I don't like Baskshi's LOTR as much as Jackson's, I surprisingly like Bakshi's LOTR better than Jackson's Hobbit films.

RIP
Bon Scott
1946-1980

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

tdaskrollins-8-246566; It is OK to have different opinion in regards to the films. We disagree, enjoyed the Jackson's HOBBIT more then you did. It was not as good as the L.O.T.R. which We rate IMDB**********10, STANDARD****4 and THE HOBBIT IMDB********8 or STANDARD***3. There was far more to work with though with L.O.T.R. also view the trilogies as one (1) movie of three (3) parts.

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 7 years ago

I also liked The Hobbt trilogy too. It was far better than the Star Wars prequels per se.

Nicko McBrain of Iron Maiden is a Brony

[–] xerses13 7 years ago

PeppyHareDiscordFluttershy; Agreed, in fact the last STAR WARS film (VII) and ROGUE ONE are what they SHOULD have been. Lucas should have just acted as Producer and let somebody else handle the masterminding.

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

It felt rushed.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

mirkwood4; Most likely trying to cram to much book into too little movie.

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

Yep. It ain't a full movie if it writes off the rest of the story from any moorings it may have had in the plot. It doesn't make sense for those aren't fans of Tolkien's legendarium, it leaves out a lot of important details.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

mirkwood4; Understand that even though it made money the producing studio did not want to do the 2nd part. Maybe they just did not want to deal with Baski.

[–] hannahrose313 7 years ago

It was because they were basically bankrupt after Heavens Gate, and didn't want to put their money into anything that could potentially lose them more money.

[–] coex23 8 years ago

just to put it all into context for some people:

it was a cheaply made film done at a time when animated films outside Disney were super rare. Bakshi is known for making enjoyable films with little money by use of rotoscoping and colorized found footage, etc. The guy grew up with animation, worked in the classic studios, etc.; he knows his stuff!!! but, it's hard for audiences now to see through it all, which is understandable... but really too bad, as he was putting everything he had into his films at the time.

while you can't compare this film with Jackson's, it would be silly to try, it's still an enjoyable kids film. My kids love this and the crappier Rankin/Bass Hobbit pre-quel. And, if memory serves, Bakshi was hoping to get funding for all three books... that never worked out, obviously.

comparing any of his 70s film with modern animation is silly. he really was battling Disney with no money. Terrible time!! it's amazing he not only got this done, but other good ones too!

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

mazigazi; My viewpoint is based upon seeing it in its original release. Seeing it again just confirmed it. That your Children like it is great. T.L.O.T.R. by Jackson is a daunting piece of viewing.

[–] hannahrose313 7 years ago

I liked both live action and animated when I was a kid, and like both now.

[–] brucedgo 8 years ago

For me, this film has a lot going for it compared with the Jackson blockbuster.

Pros (really these are all Cons for the newLOTR):
- not 10 hours long and boring (* see later note at bottom)
- it sticks to the story without getting bogged down in over-long special effects scenes
- Frodo has a real personality beyond looking worried
- hobbits look like hobbits. Men look like men, etc.
- the surrealistic effects really help set a nice -- AND MORE CONSISTENT -- tone.
(newLOTR going back and forth between animation and a New Zealand travelog does NOT work. I've often thought that it could be fixed by making the non-effects scenes look more like the effects scenes.)
-

Cons:
- the dialog could be much improved, though hopefully not like the newLOTR
- the visuals could be done much better -- though still using the same techniques and style.

Bottom line:
Would love to see THIS version redone. Just imagine what could be done with even a fraction of the amount spent on the newLOTR.

…later Edit after finishing the movie…

Wow! That ending is indeed a failure. There had to be a better way to present an unfinished story.

Also, I started having trouble following the story toward the end, partly due to lessened interest. The dialog is really poor.

* I was wrong about the needed length. It needs to be longer than this movie by quite a bit. At one point there was such a jump in the story line it was as if a whole scene had simply been omitted.

I think this does show potential, though. With the right money and artistic creativity, an awesome two-part animated film could be made.

Timmie, if you don't bring that rocketship back this instant, you'll get the spanking of your life!

[–] heelmaster2000 8 years ago

I agree with the OP. It was a decent film, but far from good.

[–] VVolfySnackrib 8 years ago

The story of The Lord of the Rings has always remained very close within my family, so close that I myself am named since birth after one of its main characters, Legolas. I've seen the movies, read the books, and as a kid I saw this cartoon version on more than one occasion. I just re-watched it for the first time in years, all while I am reading the first book, back to back. Unlike the Peter Jackson version which changes a bunch of stuff around in a way that's sometimes unfaithful to the book, I found that the things included in this 1978's version was far more faithful. I mean I love the Jackson version dearly, but I love this one dearly as well. I think that you get different sides depending on which version you watch. The Peter Jackson version is faithful in its own way and this one is faithful in its own way as well. The Jackson version is more dramatized, and this one sticks with the original representation of the characters. It's more old school, it's a bit dated, but that's part of its charm. I definitely think it's a masterpiece in its own merit.

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

VVolfySnackrib: We were not a 'kid' when I saw it, being 27 at that time. I am also aware of the differences that Peter Jackson made in creating his vision. Not unusual, somethings just do not translate well from page to screen, film being a commercial venture as well as a art-form, best to change some things to insure success then fail.

'Masterpiece' is quite a stretch and cannot bring ourselves to ever come too accepting that standard. It was financially successful but found it a bore. Which I did not find in the P.J. trilogy.

[–] feelingwear 8 years ago

I don't consider this version to be a masterpiece but I definitely think it sticks closer to the spirit of the books than the new films did, which I like less and less each time I try to watch them these days. The ringwraiths, for example, were handled way better in this version and closer to how they are in the books, much creepier.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 8 years ago

It's weird. In comparison to the book it seems pretty rushed, yet on its own as a movie it's kind of slow and tedious. Plus that weird rotoscoping didn't turn out that well. Jackson's version may not stick as religiously close to the book but it's by far the better adaptation. I respect what Bakshi was trying to do though.

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

Cult_of_Kibner; That was our feeling also when I first saw it, 'tedious'. BAKSHI succeeded in taking a high adventure and make it boring.

[–] PKLarkins 8 years ago

I saw this in the theater when it came out and was hugely disappointed. I thought the voice acting was passionless and the strange animation poorly done. I saw it again this week, and still think so. I don't think that it's really closer to the book than Peter Jackson's films, in spite of the changes Jackson made; too much is left out, and what's left is gone through too rapidly.

Just as an aside, why don't the hobbits in any of the films actually have furry feet? Tolkien described the hair on their feet as being similar to the hair on their heads, but the movies all show them with just a little bit of leg-hair type hair on their feet.

Earth without art is just "eh."

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

PKLarkin; It seems most of the viewers consider this film a disappointment. As for the lack of 'furry feet', maybe it just did come across well on the screen in live action. Or they felt it made the Hobbits look to much like animals rather then short Human Beings.