The Lord Of The Rings: Animated: 1978 (Disc 1/2)

[rawabrendanrawa]

here's to hoping part 2 will be better...dear god this is terrible

[MullacAbu413]

Lmao! 6:58 stoned/smug Gandalf

[MullacAbu413]

The characters in this are BULLSHIT!! But, the dialogue and plot (the little that there is) is more accurate than PJ's. He had the budget to do it right, but spent it all on visuals.

[Tippotipo]

@MullacAbu413

He clearly did right given the huge success LOTR trilogy had to the global audience. Majority of people know book conversion to movie will never be fully accurate. Otherwise, the project will simply vanish into obscurity. The plot is still intact: the ring is evil.

[MullacAbu413]

@Tippotipo Jersey Shore is hugely successful, but that doesn't make it great.

[ROOKI3LINKX]

Gandalf is twisted and scary in this movie.

[turniparse]

Sam is Alan Titchmarsh

[62chipo]

man the fighting seens and the enemies are so fucking... gay... like come on

[turniparse]

@Mubu5Reborn At the start its Bilbo --he fucks off with the donkey...Donkey

[Mubu5Reborn]

@turniparse its bilbos nephew

[turniparse]

Nice one Bilbo son..give me the ring and you fuck off with the donkey

[mucklebones1973]

great animation for its time.shame they ran out of money to finish the story.

[mach373mac]

this movie is very different than the book....its bugging me. >:|

[dennis4399]

@mach373mac indeed.

[EatMyPwn]

@mach373mac

so is Peter Jackson's, though. I think both have their pluses and minuses- and I think both of them were the worst when they chose to take creative liberties. Which reflects poorly on the directors- considering most adaptations are best where directors chose to take creative liberties while maintaining major themes from the works their adapting (see: A Clockwork Orange, BladeRunner). But atmospherically they both definitely have good things going for them.

[EatMyPwn]

@mach373mac *I think I should also note that since Stanley Kubrick is dead I don't think there will ever be anyone alive who will be able to direct a decent Lord of the Rings film- not that there ever really needs to be a decent film. Adaptations tend to be unnecessary unless the director has creative input- but Lord of the Rings isn't really a work that benefits from input anywhere but its source :(.

[Tippotipo]

@EatMyPwn

Oh please, let it go. The movie version of Lord of The Rings especially the extended one did very well by capturing the essence of the book: the ring is a threat. Here in this animated version, the feel is rushed, Gandalf holding the One Ring without feeling then feared when Frodo tend to him ruined the threatening feeling of One Ring. All description in a book will not well translate in the movie so compromise had to be made. LOTR is thousand pages remember?

[EatMyPwn]

@Tippotipo No compromise had to be made because no movie had to be made. That's what I'm saying. A Clockwork Orange was a masterpiece because Stanley Kubrick gave passionate creative input. Tolkien's novels don't lend themselves to adaptation, so every attempt seems to amount to: "how can we get around what Tolkien wrote so we can make a moderately watchable movie without pissing anyone off and without shooting the pacing to shit?" It doesn't help that Jackson went George Lucas kind-of-crazy.

[Tippotipo]

@EatMyPwn

That is expecting too much of a thousand pages book. Kubrick never had that kind of challenge in his lifetime and was mostly specialized in science fiction. Peter Jackson had also help from Sir Christopher Lee, the only cast to ever met John Ronald R Tolkien in person and one of the hardcore LOTR reader and other staff. No matter the adaptation from books, there will be always complainers. Some scene like Eomyr vs Witchking worked better than in a book.

[EatMyPwn]

@Tippotipo I was going to continue the argument by asking where I said that I expected a 100% accurate adaptation (considering most complaints seem to be with what Jackson added, including poor dialog and dumb sub-plots), but then I realized you were trolling when you said this: " Some scene like Eomyr vs Witchking worked better than in a book."

lol okay

[Tippotipo]

@EatMyPwn

For your view, just because I prefer some part of adaptation better than in book is trolling? Clearly you are blinded by your own no-compromise book to movie theatre conversion for a massive book that is LOTR. Because you seem to know better than Peter Jackson, you would not be here to argue and instead work for a studio on this huge adaptation. Let see how you will fare. Eomyr vs Witchking whole verbal dialogue will not work well for today generation where visual matters.

[EatMyPwn]

@Tippotipo Yeah. Because every person who's critical of art better have studio backing so they may walk the walk, correct? I guess nobody should ever talk about movies again.

Also I think tons of inaccurate adaptations are fantastic movies. I just don't think Rings lends itself to adaptation. It's not a book that translates smoothly to screen, and it's not a book that leaves much room for artistic input. But I do think you're stupid, if you want me to feed the fire some more.

[EatMyPwn]

@Tippotipo Usually adapting a creative work is an attempt to give your own creative input- an adaptation can be accurate (A Clockwork Orange) or way off (Children of Men) and still be fantastic. Lord of the Rings felt like it was a cut-and-paste of key events from the books, with some stale, awful character arcs thrown in by Jackson to appease film audiences. Large scale literature that's very grounded in its material and offers no reason to be adapted usually works better as mini-series'.

[Tippotipo]

@EatMyPwn

Clockwork Orange and Lord of Rings adaptation from book cannot be compared, the latter is overly complex to fully translate in movie considering the constraint from scriptwriters, budgets and publishers. Problem with mini-series is the consistency in term of audience and story, it would not have the same success like the big screen counterpart and has bigger chance to be left unfinished. Be glad PJ adaptation renewed LOTR interest.

[EatMyPwn]

@Tippotipo as far as "bringing a work to visual life for the soul purpose of bringing a work to visual life" goes, anyway.

[amaxamon]

@mach373mac It's more accurate than the Jackson version.