|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 5 2015, 1:35am
Post #1 of 24
(2243 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bakshi lotr on TCM now
|
Can't Post
|
|
'“All my dialogue was 100% Tolkien out of the book...Tolkien needs no help,"
great quote from bakshi, a reason why the script is so strong, shame theres not much love for it round here. maybe beacause its so unhollywood and no famous 'good looking' actors in it (no offence to john hurt et al, but you know what i mean)
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 5 2015, 3:10am
Post #3 of 24
(2200 views)
Shortcut
|
but i do think some people like the films for shallow reasons. i think the films are in some ways made and promoted for shallow reasons!
but if were doing tit for tat problems, i could name quite a few about the mpdern adaptations. which i do like obviously!
(This post was edited by balbo biggins on Sep 5 2015, 3:12am)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Sep 5 2015, 3:13am
Post #4 of 24
(2205 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Typical Hollywood conventions...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not everything has to follow the same overused Hollywood formula of balanced pacing, consistent aesthetics, completed animations and a full storyline.
Seriously, though. When does the crowd funding start for Bakshi to make part two? Because I will donate all the monies to see that.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Sep 5 2015, 4:45pm
Post #7 of 24
(2144 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not messing with Tolkien's dialogue...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...does not a great script make.
It's a misconception that a good script = good dialogue and vice versa. It's a bit more complicated than that.
In this viewer's honest opinion, the script is a complete and utter disaster, like the rest of the film.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 5 2015, 5:29pm
Post #8 of 24
(2133 views)
Shortcut
|
...does not a great script make.
It's a misconception that a good script = good dialogue and vice versa. It's a bit more complicated than that.
In this viewer's honest opinion, the script is a complete and utter disaster, like the rest of the film.
so according to your logic bakshis disastrous script doesnt mean its bad dialogue!
its intriguing that you assumably think bakshis scenes where they hide under the tree trunk from the black rider is a disaster, so too the silly proudfoot shot or the attack in bree at night!
I think your being somewhat biased and dismissive. there are many great things about the fim even if some of it you clearly despise.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Sep 5 2015, 5:43pm
Post #9 of 24
(2128 views)
Shortcut
|
What does that even mean? Anybody who doesn't like (or, in my case, loathes) the Bakshi film is "biased"? That's a convenient way of completely dismissing anybody who disagrees with you.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Sep 5 2015, 6:08pm
Post #10 of 24
(2120 views)
Shortcut
|
I wouldn't say the script is a disaster, but it's definitely a mess (closer to being a disaster than it should be though). Some of the scenes are good as standalone scenes, and I think using dialogue directly from the book plays a part in that. But the movie definitely feels disjointed, and information is just thrown out there without any regard for the bigger picture. Like when Aragorn randomly mentions Elendil at the Council of Elrond. It's literally the only time Elendil is mentioned, and his relationship to Isildur isn't even explained.
(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Sep 5 2015, 6:11pm)
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 5 2015, 8:57pm
Post #11 of 24
(2107 views)
Shortcut
|
so you dont like the scene in PJs lotr where they hide from the blackrider under the tree? you do know where they got that from dont you?
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 5 2015, 8:58pm
Post #12 of 24
(2111 views)
Shortcut
|
Like when Aragorn randomly mentions Elendil at the Council of Elrond. It's literally the only time Elendil is mentioned, and his relationship to Isildur isn't even explained.
or like when legolas mentions morgoth?
(This post was edited by balbo biggins on Sep 5 2015, 8:58pm)
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Sep 5 2015, 9:13pm
Post #13 of 24
(2102 views)
Shortcut
|
Come on now...you know that's completely different. The connection between Elendil, Isildur, and Narsil is an important part of Aragorn's story and could have been easily cleared up in a sentence or two. Actually developing that plot point would have been nice too, but Aragorn's lineage and destiny to become king is pretty much forgotten about during the rest of the movie. Do I really need to explain how casually saying "a Balrog of Morgoth" is not even comparable to that? You're kind of grasping at straws and ignoring our criticisms.
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 5 2015, 9:32pm
Post #14 of 24
(2091 views)
Shortcut
|
your completely missing the point, your judging the story on what you want to be in it, you can easily edit out aragorns backstory if your trying to make a slimmed down version, your comparing it and not really watching it on its own merits. lets not forget the film is unfinished, and you already know the backstory anyway!
whats morgoth? at least we get the gorgeous imagery of the king with the broken sword swearing to protect frodo, you only need that line to get a sense of a history in the character, a mystery. which maybe we would find out about, either way its not a problem unless you make it one.
i accept critiscm of bakshi, lord i have lots, but this? no
|
|
|
Susan
Bree
Sep 6 2015, 12:46am
Post #15 of 24
(2086 views)
Shortcut
|
there's plenty in that movie that isn't very Tolkien at all. The Council of Elrond is condensed beyond comprehension, Gandalf doesn't check the inscription on the ring after chucking it into the fire, you don't really know why the ring has to be brought to Mt. Doom, Narsil was never mentioned as being reforged into Anduril so it just shows up nice and un-broken, "Celeborn" is pronounced wrong, "Aruman," pantless Viking Boromir, and don't even get me started on Sam. Please don't misunderstand me, you are perfectly welcome to like the movie, and it does have some good parts. But implying that the main reason people don't enjoy it is because it is "unhollywood" and doesn't have any "famous 'good looking' actors" is not really fair.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Sep 6 2015, 1:54am
Post #16 of 24
(2057 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Quite, Elfstone. Differences between reading and visual/spoken can be profound. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not messing with Tolkien's dialogue...does not a great script make.
It's a misconception that a good script = good dialogue and vice versa. It's a bit more complicated than that.
In this viewer's honest opinion, the script is a complete and utter disaster, like the rest of the film.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Sep 6 2015, 1:20pm
Post #17 of 24
(2032 views)
Shortcut
|
It is totally fine to prefer his approach to Jackson's.
But the "arguments" brought forward in the OP's post to explain why Jackson's approach might be more popular are shallow at best.
Tolkien was as good a world builder as he was with words... And that world building imho totally fails in Bakshi's approach.
Believing in Tolkien's writing is one thing... But especially when you heavily condense things you have to find ways to tell the story in a shorter way... Telling several things about the story, the characters and the world at once. Bakshi imho failed here.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Sep 6 2015, 1:23pm)
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 6 2015, 7:12pm
Post #18 of 24
(1978 views)
Shortcut
|
my original point still stands, there is a hate of this adaption that runs further than just story or aesthetics, its a complete dismissal of this being in anyway a valid adaption of any interest, compare that to just one example THE HOBBIT which is so untolkien in large parts, and a complete mess of a script 'do you think she would have loved me' a complete rewrite, but would be defended to the ends of the earth by tolkien fans. Its illogical, and i think biased and has its roots in celebrity,the worst of fandom, commercialisation, and dumbing down.
a lot of the arguments for the hobbit, are that its just an adaption, it doesnt matter that it is different to the book, its just one persons vision and you still have the book Its a pity that those same people dont respect someone elses vision,and attempt although flawed, to bring tolkien to life, which in my eyes at its core has a good heart, again its biased. you dont have to like it, you can even hate it, but the lack of interest or talk or respect of bakshis adaption is very sad.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Sep 6 2015, 8:45pm
Post #19 of 24
(1960 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Now you suddenly talk the Hobbit.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was talking LotR.
BTW I don't dislike Bakshi's adaption because of Tolkien. I dislike it (parts of it at least) because I do not find it very convincing as a movie standing on its own feet. I'd say knowing Tolkien it is easier to appreciate his attempt.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Sep 8 2015, 8:23pm
Post #20 of 24
(1842 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That quote was not in the Theatrical Version.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Besides:
Part of the attraction of the L.R. [The Lord of the Rings] is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist.
-Letter #247
******************************************
"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"
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 8 2015, 8:59pm
Post #21 of 24
(1837 views)
Shortcut
|
I totally agree with your point, to criticise bakshis film for leaving historical references up in the air, however much we want them expanded is totally legit.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Sep 8 2015, 10:02pm
Post #22 of 24
(1829 views)
Shortcut
|
…because the story is unfinished,
Conservative insurance conglomerate TransAmerica had just taken over United Artists and promptly freaked-out that no one could give them a 100% guarantee that LOTR Part 2 would be a success.
… large portions were never completely animated…
For some reason though cels were animated Bakshi decided to go with solarizing and color overlay. It didn’t turn out very good.
and as such are ugly as sin,
Mike Ploog’s “melted wax” grotesqueries tend to be more horror than high fantasy.
… the overall tone is too dated and trippy for most people,
The Hanna-Barbera-chic look is distracting.
…and the film gets increasingly disjointed and incomprehensible in its second half?
Bakshi had only four weeks to edit a three hour rough cut down to just over two hours. It shows.
It's cool if you like the Bakshi...
I'd much rather watch Wizards (1977).
.. but there's no grounds for insinuating that people dislike it for shallow reasons when the film has so many obvious problems.
I find it unwatchable.
******************************************
"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"
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Sep 8 2015, 10:34pm
Post #23 of 24
(1826 views)
Shortcut
|
]…because the story is unfinished
it was finished, scripts were written, part 1 was finished, studio pressure meant it was billed as a complete story, annoying audiences and probably ruining any chances of finishing the sequel.
… large portions were never completely animated…
what like backgrounds? no they wernt. it was the directors decision. if your making lord of the rings twice in two years, speed was at an essence.
and as such are ugly as sin
or other words could be, inspired, unique, different..depends on your view point, theres not one definite response.
… the overall tone is too dated and trippy for most people
or maybe too 'fantasy' for most people. this was the 70's give it a little credit.
…and the film gets increasingly disjointed and incomprehensible in its second half?
which would have been resolved in part 2 if they let him finish it.
It's cool if you like the Bakshi...
cheers!!
. but there's no grounds for insinuating that people dislike it for shallow reasons when the film has so many obvious problems.
'I find it unwatchable' but seem to know a lot about it!?
again, i refer you to the hobbit and a lot of these points can apply to that in a sense, but its ok cos PJ made it and thorins got nice hair!
(This post was edited by balbo biggins on Sep 8 2015, 10:36pm)
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Sep 11 2015, 1:34pm
Post #24 of 24
(1713 views)
Shortcut
|
|
PJ's Hobbit is not as popular with fans as you make out...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
THE HOBBIT which is so untolkien in large parts, and a complete mess of a script 'do you think she would have loved me' a complete rewrite, but would be defended to the ends of the earth by tolkien fans.
You may think that "Tokien fans" will defend PJ's Hobbit, but the truth is that only the fans of PJ's Hobbit will defend it, and there are obviously many fans of PJ's vision on these boards, since that is who the forum is for. But outside of these forums The Hobbit is seen as a bit of a joke, especially by those that loved the book, and when the hype dies down in a year or so the review scores will drop pretty fast. It's generally considered 'not as bad as the Star Wars prequels, but still pretty terrible'.
On the other hand, Bakshi's version is more popular than many people realise. When it was released it made back more than seven times its budget and was a huge financial success and very popular. It's only over time, especially the last decade, that it's lost respect. I remember before FotR came out people were discussing how it would match up to Bakshi's version, which many held in high regard.
I don't see Bakshi's LotR as better than PJ's Hobbit though. Both are really messy, but at least PJ's is coherent to those who haven't read the source material - and parts are masterfully handled, like Smaug and Gollum. One thing that should be kept in mind is that many who defend PJ's Hobbit did not like the book. So their perspective is understandably different.
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Sep 11 2015, 1:35pm)
|
|
|
|
|
