NOT THAT BAD
Okay, okay, this isn't on the same level as the mega blockbuster movies, but it still has its points.
shareThere's a lot to love here. Its animation is creative and atmospheric, the performances are mostly good (mostly...I really wish I could slap this version's Sam), and the scenes it covers it mostly does well.
The character design is also, for the most part, pretty good.
One of the film's most commendable aspects is the pioneering of certain things: the Ringwraiths' attack in the night at Bree, for instance.
I wish the fights were done a bit better, particularly the way the orcs have a tendency to run up to things and then start pumping their arms in the air like Tuscan raiders. And there are weird things due to producers meddling (Aruman/ Saruman). But, honestly, the biggest problem is just that they didn't give Bakshi the time, budget, and leeway to do a full trilogy of films, and shoot them properly. If he had the time to tell the complete story, I think he could have made something really special which would be remembered fondly to this day. But he had to rush the story and production. He had to cut things, he didn't have time to choreograph the fights properly, he couldn't spend a bundle on costumes to make them look more detailed and complex in the completed animation, etc., etc.
But there's so much good stuff here, I could never write them off, and there's a lot of stuff I enjoy about them. Frodo is a lot closer to his book portrait here, actually, than he is in Jackson's films. His determination and valour is more apparent in the Bakshi film.
I agree, and also think Galadriel's temptation for the Ring when Frodo offers it is handled better by Bakshi, not so over the top, but more subtle & ominous. It's all the more powerful for being almost understated.
shareGaladriel was lovely in Bakshi's version, although I really do like Blanchett, as well. Yes, I remember not caring too much for the photo-negative Galadriel thing. Jackson's version feels "bigger" in a lot of ways, more epic, (which is certainly a weight on his side of the scales), so I think Galadriel's ominous portents of her corruption needed some grandeur, but I think they pushed it in a weird way.
These are nit-picks, though. I really enjoyed what Jackson and Co. did with Tolkien's work; I think it's as close as we're likely to come to a "true/accurate" film version for a long time.
No complaints about Blanchett, by any means! :)
If LotR had been filmed as a live-action film (or films, ideally) in the past, before CGI, by a skilled director staying as true to the tone & spirit of the books as possible, I wonder what it might have been like? Never going to happen now, of course! But (for instance), a non-CGI Gollum by the right actor could be stunning ... again, not to diminish what Andy Serkis did via motion-capture & superb voice acting.
Just an idle daydream of mine ... :)
I agree 100%. I would like to see an old-school epic like Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia with hundreds (thousands...!?) of extras in combat and costume, no VFX possible, just storytelling.
Ultimately, I think a little VFX helps. Maybe on stuff like Shelob. But even then, it's possible to make some crazy good models (the dragon in Dragonslayer, for example), and shoot it well enough to give the impression of speed and size. Goodness knows they fudged size in a LOT of other ways...
We'll never know, yeah... I do wish they'd given Bakshi about ten times the budget and let him do three movies. I wish they hadn't interfered (Aruman, for instance). I wish he'd had a co-director or strong-willed designer who LOVED the books and could have reigned in some parts to keep things truer to the spirit of the books. I think with a better creative team around him, more money, and the expectation of three films, he could have come as close or closer than Jackson did.
Lawrence of Arabia was specifically on my mind, in fact! :)
I agree, there are so many sad "What ifs?" in film, aren't there?
There are. But, y'know, there might very well be a world out there with a "complete" Bakshi Lord of the Rings, but no...whatever. Maybe that would have kick-started Middle Earth Mania early, Christopher Tolkien was cranking out that stuff in the '80s and '90s, and Rowling never writes Harry Potter (maybe you think that's bad). Whatever has happened (or will happen) there will always be "what ifs". Terry Gilliam doing Watchmen, for instance.
shareIndeed, indeed. :)
share