|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Sep 3 2015, 12:16am
Post #1 of 14
(1549 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bakshi's LOTR as a template for Jackson
|
Can't Post
|
|
Right off the bat I'm not starting this thread in an attempt to slight Jackson in any way whatsoever. I love his adaptation of LOTR and I will always cherish it as one of the great film experiences of my life.
I really like Bakshi's version of LOTR, but it's far from perfect. It has some really visionary stuff going on and I have to give him credit for many of his creative choices. I also really appreciate the use of Tolkien's language in the screenplay, and it's quite faithful in that sense.
Anyways, while watching it the other night for the first time in years I was really surprised by how many similarities it has to Jackson's FOTR. Now obviously similarities are going to be present being an adaptation of the same source (derr!), but many of the shots and the way the action unfolds visually is nearly identical. This got me to wondering if Jackson had perhaps used Bakshi's version (loosely) as a sort of animatic. Or maybe just to see what worked and what didn't. This is speculation of course and again I'm not implying any kind of negative here. There are many different philosophies in the arts when it comes to drawing inspiration from others' works.
Unrelated, I do know though that Bakshi refused to watch Jackson's LOTR and made some kind of claim that LOTR was unfilmable. Boy, was he wrong about that!
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Sep 3 2015, 12:33am
Post #2 of 14
(1529 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd say other than the two shots he did as homages, most of the similarities are probably unintentional and a result of PJ simply having Bakshi's movie in the back of his mind.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Sep 3 2015, 12:50am
Post #3 of 14
(1523 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah I could totally agree with that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Did he actually do certain shots as an homage to Bakshi? If so I didn't know that!
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 3 2015, 1:59am
Post #4 of 14
(1515 views)
Shortcut
|
definitely a first draught, lets not forget bakshis was done 37 years ago, and no one had attempted to script the book for a film before, and i think its just as strong as PJ's
frodo and gandalf and aragorn have much stronger confident characters , more like the book, which i think is great, bakshi also includes many little moments from the book that pj misses aswell, pippin in bree getting attacked, aragorns broken sword from the get go! saruman of many colours frodo at the ford, these bits make up for lost moments, which you end up forgetting. also galdriel under stars and the lack of seeing sauron makes him even more creepy!
there are three scenes at least copied,the proudfoot scene, black rider scene on the road, and ringwraithes in the prancing pony
overall i like the atmosphere in bakshis version, its dark, gloomy and very enigmatic, you have to see past the dodgy design decisions,becuase its the story that shines through! i love the orcs! basically it has more book like moments characters which is great.
(This post was edited by balbo biggins on Sep 3 2015, 2:00am)
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Sep 3 2015, 3:37am
Post #5 of 14
(1503 views)
Shortcut
|
I wouldn't consider that an example of something Bakshi got right. I'd say it's a better example of how a lot of things in his movie were just thrown in because they were in the book without any regard for their actual significance. He just randomly shouts "ARUMAN (or was it Saruman in that scene?) OF MANY COLORS!!!", and it has no meaning whatsoever. He's called Aruman/Saruman "the White" and randomly decides to call himself Aruman/Saruman "of Many Colors" with no explanation while wearing a red cloak the entire time.
(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Sep 3 2015, 3:39am)
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Sep 3 2015, 3:41am
Post #6 of 14
(1499 views)
Shortcut
|
The shot of Odo Proudfoot shouting "Proudfeet!" and the shot of the hobbits hiding from the Black Rider for the first time were homages to Bakshi.
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 3 2015, 11:47am
Post #7 of 14
(1459 views)
Shortcut
|
its only a problem if you take the film in direct comparison to the book, its becuase you hold assumptions about things, why cant he be saruman the white in title? it could mean he is of a good nature, or of a higher order, second when he becomes, saruman of many colours the lights represent this, again, its doesnt have to have anything to do with his appearance.
yes aruman is silly, but its only a letter and stills sounds essentialy the same, but you have to just accept in this wolrd he is called Aruman. like in pjs world we get someone called lurtz! thats not in the book!
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 3 2015, 12:45pm
Post #8 of 14
(1453 views)
Shortcut
|
just watched a youtube clip of tgandalf and saruman meeting at orthanc, and gandalf clearly calls him Saruman with an s four times when meeting him, dont know if they edited it for later releases or if it just happens to be in this scene, but it really isnt a problem.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Sep 3 2015, 4:18pm
Post #10 of 14
(1425 views)
Shortcut
|
Unfortunately Bakshi decided to change the name right in the middle of recording dialogue which needless to say led to some confusion.
******************************************
"We’re orcs of the Misty Mountains,
Our singing’s part of canon.
We do routines and chorus scenes
While dancing with abandon.
We killed Isildur in the Gladden,
To help Sauron bring Armageddon!"
-From "Monty Python and the One Ring"
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Sep 22 2015, 11:41pm
Post #11 of 14
(1060 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Also the scene where the Nazgul are attacking the hobbits' room at the Prancing Pony.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think?
"Being negative only makes a difficult journey more difficult. You may be given a cactus, but you don't have to sit on it."
--Joyce Meyer
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP
--Leonard Nimoy
|
|
|
RomanGeneral
The Shire
Sep 24 2015, 1:14pm
Post #12 of 14
(1032 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You are right about look and feel!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I fully agree that Bakshi's version is closer, in spirit, to the books. I just posted something akin to this subject a few moments ago. The look and feel of Jackson's films is all wrong: sorry folks. I also agree with his treatment of the characters, which is not consistent with the portrayals in the books. I still love the Jackson films, but love them a little less each time I watch them. At this point, I would rather simply read the books. Jackson had a lot of missed opportunities.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Sep 26 2015, 8:28pm
Post #13 of 14
(972 views)
Shortcut
|
I fully agree that Bakshi's version is closer, in spirit, to the books. I just posted something akin to this subject a few moments ago. The look and feel of Jackson's films is all wrong: sorry folks. I also agree with his treatment of the characters, which is not consistent with the portrayals in the books. I still love the Jackson films, but love them a little less each time I watch them. At this point, I would rather simply read the books. Jackson had a lot of missed opportunities.
Granted its hard not to be influenced a bit when visualising LOTR's by Bakshi's version when it was the only one for decades but really I find his version falls along way from Tolkiens. That's not automatically a negative of course as Bakshi's Nazgul after the first scene for example look fantastic however different they are to Tolkiens.
In terms of characterisation I would agree Bakshi's version is closer in a few cases but really the big issue for me is that it does not support itself dramatically. The film basically ends up as a "Tolkiens greatest hits pt 1" and needs knowledge of the book to be really effective dramatically.
|
|
|
RomanGeneral
The Shire
Sep 28 2015, 7:15pm
Post #14 of 14
(916 views)
Shortcut
|
I am simply refereing to look and feel, and mood, if you will. It is difficult to get a sense of forboding and gloom and the scenay suggests a happy picnic.
|
|
|
|
|
