I'm convinced most people hate this movie because it's not exactly like the Peter Jackson movie

I'm convinced most people hate this movie because it's not exactly like the Peter Jackson movie.

Other urls found in this thread:

flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm
archive.org/details/TheHiFiHobbitV2
m.youtube.com/watch?v=4c75g7W9uJc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Pretty sure most people don't care about it because it literally stopped halfway through the book for some absolutely retarded reason.

It covers all of The Fellowship of the Ring and half of The Two Towers. Not bad for a '70s movie that was trying to cash in on wordy books that most kids would not have read.

It's laughably bad and cheap looking. Then it abruptly ends because Bakshi ran out of money.

It's pretty horrible. Thank God Rankin Bass did Return of the King

>rankin bass

please, stop the music. please!

People made fun of it even before the Jackson movies. I remember hearing about Bakshi's movie from this page, which was created before the first Jackson movie had been released:
flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

Is this the one that has the weird, quasi live action orcs?
I wanna say there was The Hobbit and RotK done by the same nigga, and this done by whoever, and then some weird like half-live action Two Towers by some one else entirely, but pre-Jackson these were the only film representations of Tolkien's work.
I may just misrembering my childhood.

Rewatch it 2 more times, think for 5 hours, then post again.

They were live action

>Is this the one that has the weird, quasi live action orcs?

Yes.

>I wanna say there was The Hobbit and RotK done by the same nigga,

It wasn't. Op was done by Ralph Bakshi. The Hobbit and RoTK were done by Rankin and Bass.

>TFW have the soundtrack to Rankin and Bass version of The Hobbit and lipsync through the whole fucking thing.

Like I said, half of one book. LOTR is not a trilogy.

Honestly I wanted to see an animated (2d) LOTR, not a live action one. Rankin Bass did a pretty neat job with their version- could have been better though.
Bakshi's LoTR felt lazy compared to the other things he's done in the past.

it is though?

No it's not. It would be closer to say it's 6 books rather than 3, but it's really just one large novel.

it was not written as a trilogy, it was written as a single book split into 6 sections.
Tolkien's publishers forced the book to be split into 3 books each with 2 sections so people wouldn't be as intimidated as it

Word, thanks guys.

>have the soundtrack to Rankin and Bass version of The Hobbit
I jelly.
FIFTEEN BIRDS!

>FIFTEEN BIRDS!

In Five Fir trees!

Their feathers were fanned!

In a fiery breeze!

WHAT FUNNY LITTLE BIRDS!

They had no wings!

They used the same voice for Gollum in the GOAT radio play, which is still the best LotR adaptation there ever was or will be.

>ITT: OP tries to be a contrarian unique snowflake but even Sup Forums calls him out on his bullshit

Obviously people are gonna kneejerk to this post and be contrarian in turn, but it doesn't matter, this is what i was looking for.

Loved it, still have no major objections.
I mean, how do you make animation look weird and fairytaly? It certainly looks unique.
Some costumes are beyond ridiculous, but in terms of respect for Tolkien Baskhi has Jackson beat all over the board.
1. Gimli is not an idiot (Sam is though)
2. Legolas can't kill everything without even trying.
3. All the focus is not on Aragorn.
4. Balrog isn't a mindless roaring monster.
5. Fights aren't drawn out for no reason. Jackson looks like American "wrestling".

And so on and so forth...

>lotr was three films
>that means the far shorter hobbit needs to be three films

I watched it before seeing Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. It was incredibly tedious and confusing, the animation was uncanny and weird, and the ending seemed abrupt.

I'm sure your smug contrarianism helps you feel like a true superior specimen. Unfortunately critical and commercial reception prove that the Jackson movies are infinitely better.

I give it props for experimenting but the experiment kinda failed. The Hobbit was good though

Hobbit could have been two. The Rankin/Bass film still seems like it's paced too quickly. Two would have been the perfect amount of allowing the story to decompress without having to fill time with appendix material or newly invented OCs.

adults are talking, user

Eh, it's ok. If they didn't run out of budget it might even have been good. Really, if they could have planned for it, I think the incomplete animation they did for the orcs near the end would have actually been a pretty cool effect for the ring wraiths to have instead.

I agree with this, 2 films would have been perfect. Some of the lengthy parts were good, like the whole part with Smaug was great but the final fight dragged out too long and would have benefitted from some of it being cut

Oh, the Jackson movies are better in some respects, never argued about that. But Bakashi is more Tolkien than Jackson. If you want to measure it by standards of a action movies and superheroes, Jackson wins, no problem.

>American wrestling
Ironic considering Bakshi is the American and Jackson is the kiwi

the rotascoped animation freaked me out as a kid

No. It's because that film is bad in so many ways. The cinematography and editing are literally some of the most amateurish I've ever seen. It's incredible to think that it was made by actual 'professionals'. A lot of the background art is downright ugly. The rotoscoping wouldn't have been so bad if Bakshi had given his live actors any directing to speak of, but instead they flail around like idiots.

I could nitpick the characters and setting more, but Tolkien fans have already been doing that for decades.
I listened to it; it wasn't that great.

>like the whole part with Smaug was great
Oh dear...

in the second movie it was. Why they changed him to a Wyvern still baffles me

Wyverns>>>>>>any other kind of dragon

Prove me wrong. (Protip:you can't)

I've never seen Bakshi's LOTOR but that poster is bangin'.

I actually loved it as a kid, long before the Jackson trilogy. We would go to the video rental place and every time my kid brother wanted to see something else, and every time I got my way and we rented Bakshi's LOTR again. This happened like five times before my parents finally told me to pick something else. It still has a place in my heart, even if it is a bit of a shit film.

The poster is much cooler than the film itself
The whole wyvern/dragon distinction is a modern D&D invention anyhow

I could post every picture of every dragon and prove you wrong. But I will settle with a dracolich, and no, it's not shit cause WoW did it too

He ran out of money

>dat badass Gandalf

Boy, do I know the feeling.

>Orson Bean
>Bean
Does this mean that...?

The optimal audiovisual format of LOTR and the other Tolkien books would be TV. There's hardly a difference between TV and cinema these days. All you need is budget.

But, for one thing, the Jackson movies got all the GOAT illustrators who had done work on the books for decades. so how can you top that?

Make the cast hella diverse?

...

Gondor could stand to be more Mediterranean, since it's sort of the Byzantium of the world to Arnor's fallen Rome

I don't think any illustrator has attempted to make everyone look "Dark Age"/early medieval like they probably should except for the Victorian hobbits. Plate armor is too cool-looking though he never mentioned it

Well I think it looks lame

>in the second movie it was.
If you think the part with Smaug in the second movie was anything short of being some of the most terrible screenwriting you've ever had the displeasure of sitting through... you're dumb.

Honestly, The Hobbit cartoon is by far the best adaptation of that book so far, much better than the Jackson films there imo. I prefer Jackson's LOTR to Bakshi's, but definitely like the Rankin Bass Hobbit the best. It's severly underrated.

My goblin kinfolk.

That reminds me. The official DVD release of The Hobbit is a travesty. It's missing nearly all of the sound effects. Some fans put together their own version that restored them called the HiFiHobbit.
>archive.org/details/TheHiFiHobbitV2
There's one bit near the beginning where the audio is slightly desynced, but besides that it's the best way to watch the movie.

This is an upstanding post.

This art style reminds me a bit of those Gnomes and Faeries books that were being published around that time.

Peter Jackson is a hack anyways

I find it cozy, too. I love the Totally Messed up Version even more. Never did like Rankin Bass.

You have to admit, though, things like the fugly, whiny Sam, Michael Jackson Galadriel and the Chuck E. Cheese Blarog were pretty terrible.

Also, ARUMAN!

It has a lot of impressive animation.

The weird animation and experimental techniques made it interesting to watch

Does that make Peter Jackson, who loves this film, a contrarian?

It was fucking badass.

And Jackson's LOTR draws on it a lot imo.

The ring wraith scene by the tree was masterful in it's eeriness.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=4c75g7W9uJc

...

Those faces scared me as a kid

It looks horrible. I hate the Peter Jackson movies too

The Nazgul were crippled?

>no complete lord of the rings comic

why?

I hate the movie because Ralph Bakshi is at his best creating edgy countercultural films like Coonskin and American Pop. He's not be best director to be handling a traditional fantasy tale written by a Roman Catholic who hated hippies.

There was a scene with him that got cut