Gandalf told Frodo when he came for this surprise visit in this movie that Gollum might do some good in the end that he does not intend. And Gollum certainly did.
Never understood why didn't Jackson address that it was nearly 20 years later after Bilbo left Bags End and the time of the Grey Wizard's return. He acted like it was a day or two. Frodo was under the ring influence all that time and stayed the same age but became more isolated and distrusting. That was just horrible. Also he didn't address why come Aragon knew of Frodo. I felt sorry for so many people who couldn't follow the Fellowship.
Peter Jacksons movie does some things better and some things worse. this gives lots of details he missed, while he went for the overarching theme and made that good. both have merit. this movie may seem bad compared to the new films- newsflash: the new films are about as bad compared to the books. there's really just no substitute. from that perspective, anything but the books is like a child copying a masters work sloppily. thumbs up the kid for recognizing something worth trying to copy
What's funny is is that if wasn't for this film, Peter Jackson would of never been inspired to pick up the books and master the later film. So whoever is hating this wonderful work of art for it's time proves to have a mind of an opinionated teenager.
This cartoon I actually really like because it looks so realistic! And to introduce a younger child to the Lord of the Rings this is a good way to start instead of showing Jackson's version right away...My brother and I had to read the books first and then we could watch them. I didn't succeed in readingg them all the way before I watched them but I will tell you this is a good movie for starters.
So what if everyone has eighties haircuts, Aragorn refuses to wear pants, and Boromir turns out to be an evil viking? I'd pick this over Jackson's films any day. This one adheres to the books far better, and Frodo actually stands up to people unlike Jackson's Frodo who needs a hand just crossing a river. :P
@w07v3r3dux My problem was more with Sam looking, acting, and sounding like he had about half the brainpower of an ordinary hobbit. Not to mention the Balrog looking like a Mandril with butterfly wings.
@w07v3r3dux hi, i am from austria, so aybe my english is not the best. i am 35 years old. and watched this movie 28 years ago, and still love it. its absolute stupid to compare this movie with jacksons films. this movie had a budget as high as 5 minutes cost in the jackson film. but i love this movie till today. it s very cool and atmospheric painted. too bad they only made 1 part
@snipermatic Your english sounds pretty good to me! And I absolutely agree! I'm very sad they didn't make a sequel to this movie, because they put a lot into it, and it still looks good today!
@w07v3r3dux one day, for shitz and giggles i thought to make an unnoficial sequel, and im planning to ask Bakshi himself to lay me a copy of the script (this movie was intended to be in 2 parts why he wouldnt have the second part?), rent some horses, and make some cosplays and trace everything! it would be fun...
but i bet Bakshi wouldnt have the work of scanning every page of the goddamn script.
@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa Well, he lives in my town, and I've met him a couple of times, I could ask him for you. Lol but yeah I'm really bummed that he didn't get to do the rest of the movies!
I wouldn't mind it if it weren't for all the overexaggurated expressions everyone seems to make. "Oh Gandalf, it's really you!" *does a twirly dance*. "sigh" lol.
@MariusMMS this stupid idiots compare a lovely handpainted movie from 78 to a computer generated film of these days. i love the bakshi movie and his atmosphere
Can't credit be given to this film for being well-animated? At the time this was made, epic story lines couldn't be shot in live action without looking dated or insanely fake. Animation has a certain measure of flexibility to it, and sometimes it's better to use it rather than what's at hand. Sure, this isn't fantastic, but worse movies were hailed as classics in the last five months alone.
How many of you are awarre that this was the work of Ralph "fFitz The Cat" Bakshi? Prior to this, nobody had even DARED to attempt this, and give the lad his due here, he's made a pretty decent effort , just a great pity that he couldn't afford to make the other part ( we were only just starting to get back into the Blockbuster movie Era, with Star Wars and Superman)
"The Peter Jackson films were better gang " are pointless and dumb.. Most of them don't know shit about the other books( for example the Silmarillion). The hairy fat guy has sold out the saga . :(
That's funny, I've read all the books including the Silmarillion and I'm perfectly willing to say that the Peter Jackson adaptations are better. Go figure
i preferd this to the remake by peter jackson as this is not as long and pointless pluss it stays more true to the book. but then again for the time The remake was epic with all it ground breaking CGI but then u watch it again and agian and you end up missing this Strange Cartoon with it hints of live action and wounder where did he go wrong to make a film with all this epic CGI and hang on the edge susspense a long and painful ride in to bordum?
This was one of my favouite films when I was a kid, and Its a big shame they didnt get to finish it. If they had, I would no doubt say it is better than Jacksons version. When I first found out LOTR was being made by Jackson I was DYING for him to base Galdolf & Gollom on this version, and I was disappointed he didnt. I actually prefer ALL the characters in the animated one.
Well Oxking, it isn;t 100% close to the book but it DOES stay true to the novel and changes very little (though don't get me started on sAruman the red...).
The best version is the ultra-close radio version with Sir Michael Hordern and Ian Holm.
@oxking0815 I am not gonna say that this stays too close to the novel but Jackson further differs sometimes you can change a detail or a thing or two and do not affect the spirit of characters and novel, jackson did quite the contraire.
It's not a great movie, but it's really not as bad as people make it out to be. I'm really sick of the fans of the Jackson films that come here to bash this movie. No, it's not as good as the Jackson-version(s), but some people like it.
I watched this way before the first live action film was even announced, so it's kinda nostalgic to watch. It has many flaws, but I think it's an enjoyable film to watch.
@Thapzaa Also, the first time peter jackson made contact with the lord of the rings was with this movie, if it was for this the live action lord of the rings could have turned out much different.
If they were going to make the whole movie by first filming live actors, why not just make the movie in damn live action? Cartoon characters aren't meant to move realistically, it's distracting. If this movie was just traditionally animated, it'd be a bit better.
Ya know I've read the books many times and i don't remember the Samwise Gamgee character being such an annoying retard like he is in this movie. The live action Peter Jackson movies did a much better job with him though.
@HelloFade2 Yes indeed but only with him, it destroyed almost everyone else so why complain? Do you want a list? Theoden, Denethor, Faramir or Aragorn...I do dare everyone who read the books to tell me they are as good in the movie as in the novel.
uhm, lol. look at the difference between the gandalf in jackson's and this gandalf. this gandalf looks scary, while jackson's gandalf looks good hearted, and helpfull... why did they do that lol?
Ralph Bakshi. And its superior to the live action ones in some respects. Music is better, especially the music during the fight at Helms Deep when Aragorn, Theoden and the remaining men charge from the Glittering Caves and try to fight off the Orcs.
One of my few beefs with this version is that the orcs kinda look like Tusken Raiders a bit. But thats just nitpicking really. Check this film out if you haven't yet.
At least the hobbits in this film didn't make me want to vomit blood, the looks frodo and sam gave it each other in PJ's version kinda spoiled that film for me. This version was far from perfect but it had a lot of good points, the music was very original and personally I loved the way it blended real life footage and animation. It was ashame Bakshi never had enough money to make the film properly.
This cartoon was bad but Jackson's film did leave out alot of material and make alot alterations. Especially in LOTR: THE RETURN OF THE KING when Gollum, Frdo and Sam are climbing up the stairs of Cirith Ungol. That scene where Gollum threw the lembas down the cracks of Cirith Ungol and spread some of the crumbs on Sam's clothes to trick Frodo into thinking that he betrayed them on their quest to Mordor and to send Sam home didn't happen in Tolkien's book.
there's never going to be a literal and word for word adaptation of any book. That's why it's an adaptation. It's adapted to accomodate the movie better.
Although sometimes, producers make terrible changes to the original story. But I loved Jackson's LoTR, and, no I haven't read the books. And Bakshi's movie seems to be too "artistic" and not very exciting.
Shut up. There are going to be changes, but if perhaps if you had actually READ the books you'd know how terrible Peter Jackson's changes were. Turning one of the most brilliant books ever written in the English language into an action flick with one liners like "I AM NO MAN!" is by no means a good adaptation. Removing this is necessary, but simplifying things for the retard crowed isn't.
I never said these were particularly good. I said they're better than Peter Jackson's flicks.
Thinking somethings better than something else doesn't make me a full blown elitist. Do you like Lord of the Rings better than- say- if you want to talk about a high fantasy trilogy that's often used- Star Wars? If so, you're an elitist fuck.
I think Tolkien's books were some of the best books ever written, and that Jackson's films were stupid. Fucking dolt.
And you called me an elitist in defense of your views. Me denying being an elitist shouldn't be surprising at all, unless you're a fucking idiot.
"Oh man, look at this creep! He responded to inaccurate criticism by pointing out the inaccuracies in the criticism! How surprising!" Go die in a ditch, you useless shell of a human being.
What, do you have like, 3 opinions? "This kids a douchebag, I love Peter Jackson, I like football".
Go die in a ditch, you useless shell of a human being.
Your mother suck cocks in hell. What a nice person you must be in person! So what exactly is the problem with Peter Jacksons adaptations? Other than anyone who doesn't agree with you is a retard? Can you express yourself in a more adult way? I doubt it!
Wow, and you are calling him childish, Solomon? ''Go die in a ditch'' and ''your mother suck cocks in hell'' ( this 'The Exorcist' quote taken outside of its context is stupid).
EatMyPwn doesn't like the Jackson films. That is fair enough. Infact, the Jackson films, though I like them, are a bastardization of a great story.
Express myself in a more adult way? On the internet? If I must. Although you don't seem very adult, considering your taste in movies seems to be on par with a 12 year old who begs his mother to see Transformers.
Apart from the fact that the films were RIDDLED with cinematic cliches (Frodo hanging off the edge of The Crack of Doom after having an epic fight with Gollum, Aragorn is an "unsure hero", corny one liners like "I am no man!", a collective 30 minutes of ring wraith chase scenes) (cont.)
"If I must. Although you don't seem very adult, considering your taste in movies seems to be on par with a 12 year old who begs his mother to see Transformers"
The fact I like "the lord of the rings"? Isn't that what we're discussing here? Your right, Tolkien and Tolkien adapations are "for 12 year olds"! You seem to demonstrate that with every post!
What is with you and "black and white". I clearly said that Tolkien's books are some of the greatest pieces of English literature ever written. So not only are you a complete idiot- but you have the attention span and memory of a brick.
Besides, you just asked me why the Jackson adaptations were bad, and I just responded.
Oh, and wrong "your/you're". I'll give you that one though, may have just been an accident.
He also changed the plot arch to match Star Wars since he couldn't find his own freakin' way to do a three part epic, the soundtrack was John Williams wannabe on the subject of Star Wars, and he spent more time worrying about CG monsters and blue screens than he did the dialogue and consistent plots of the books. Plot holes galore!
Of course I expect the books to be cut and compressed as films. I don't expect them to be turned into Star Wars set in medieval England.
I'd rather have all of that than the butchered character of Sam, Julius Elrond Caeser, Chief Aragorn, The Balrog in giant Bunny Slippers, inconsistant animation, (S)Aruman, bad acting, non-animation, Sauron the Knight who says Ni, Boromir the Viking, Tusken Raider Orcs.....I can go on you know, you silly angry hipster :P
Hipsters definitely don't like Lord of the Rings- too conservative. Definitely the part of counter-culture they'd like to pretend to have forgotten.
But once more, I'm not saying these adaptations are better- or maybe I did. My comments were a long time ago- and I don't think these were particularly good. But I think this guy probably gets more credit, considering not only was it a first attempt, but the guy clearly had a greater passion than Jackson did.
I think more than anything, I'm just disappointing that because of Jackson's insanely disappointing movies (disappointing not only because they changed/altered the plot, but because they were also mediocre films. While the visuals and performances were fantastic, they were terrible paced and the dialogue was stilted. The character archetypes were also bland and generic) there will probably never be another Hollywood crack at adaptations- at least not with the same talent involved.
Tell that to Rotten Tomatoes, who gave the films an average of 94% Or to Metacritic, who gave it an average of 91.3% Or the Academy Awards, in which the trilogy was nominated for 30 awards and won 17. Has no passion, you say? Tell that to the crew who spent half a decade to create all the props, sets, and miniatures, in collaboration with Alan Lee and John Howe (I'll assume heard of them). That has less passion, than a couple of sketches traced badly over live action footage?
@MasterofArda So your argument (as a vehement defender of Peter Jackson, and his apparent creativity), is that a large budget and a lot of time warrant stilted dialogue, mediocre performances out of actors who are normally incredible (lol VM as Aragorn...), and terrible, piss-awful, boring-ass pacing more than a short animated project does? I think you need to contextualize this a little- I'd say Braid has more passion and soul in it than Bulletstorm or Halo.
Secondly, the Academy award also gave 11 Oscars to The Titanic. And it got a pretty decent rating on Rotten Tomatoes as well. Granted- they also gave 11 to Ben-Hur. Point being, not only are the Oscars inconsistent, but I also remain skeptical of their choices.
As for critical response, I couldn't care less. Most film "experts" are terrible writers, and insanely stupid. I.E. Epert
Bottom line is, they're both bad movies. I wish Kubrick had done 'em.
Okay, clearly you've got some sort of vendetta against the guy. What, did he run over your puppy or something? Seriously, you must have the sensitivity of a cockroach, because these are not the opinions held by normal people. And I would bring up more facts to back me up, but I finally realize that it's impossible to debate with the delusional.
PS: It's funny how you called Epert insanely stupid, as he had a similar opinion about the Jackson movies as you. Go figure!
Nope, I just wish he had remained a good director. Dead Alive was hilarious and Heavenly Creatures was a fantastic movie. You see my point here? While I may be a fan of the books, I feel these films have far more of an excuse for being bad- considering they are short-termed animated products. I don't think Jackson's films lived up to being the next "Ben-Hur" as everyone seems to have made them out to be- they were mediocre films. It's MORE disappointing because I love the books.
But I can tell you're probably a troll, considering your name is "Master of Arda" and you just seemed to pop onto these youtube comment boards with no other purpose than to vehemently defend Jackson's films with silly points like: "Well, the critics liked it! Therefore, it is factually a good film!"
2. You've taught me a valuable lesson: you cant argue with the mentally handicapped. Should've learned that from the teabaggers, but oh well :/
3. If critics have no authority in how good a movie is, then who does? You? because if you can deem a movie bad based on your opinion, then everyone else's opinions over rule yours, making it a good movie after all.
4. Now that I'm starting to lose enjoyment from your PMSing, I think i'm my work here is done. CYA!
@MasterofArda agreed, even tough i liked the jackson films, Bakshi had a certain ''passion'' because he only did the movie because he loved the books, and tried to be as accurate as possible, but low bugdet and butt-hurt producers didnt let bakshi finish the whole thing and now people bash him and this movie.
@EatMyPwn I actually think like you as the Jackson flicks are clearly overrated, yet somehow find the I am no man as one of the lesser offenders, what about Denethor Aragorn Theoden or Faramir...those for me are the real offenders.
Yeah, seriously! I appreciated Jackson's films visually, and the performances from the cast across the board were incredible. And I can even deal with event changes and plot alterations- Kubrick did it all the time, and his adaptations were the best in film history. But why on earth did Peter Jackson see it necessary to completely change the character archetype of Aragorn, or turn Gimli into an annoying twat, or change the destruction of the ring, or Denathor's archetype? *sigh*
I don't know, why did Bakshi butcher even more important characters (cough cough, Sam). Yeah, i'll say that the New Line films took a bunch of liberties with the details, honestly, i don't really care that much, as it still keeps the general spirit of the books, and is still a damn fine movie on its own merits (as opposed to this atrocity). If you expect 100% accuracy from any film adaptation, you're an idiot. 'Nuff said
@67nairb Oh I think you're getting me wrong it is not that I think an actor coulda made a better Aragorn, no Viggo was perfect, it is a writer and a director doind a better LOTR adaptation the thing I am aiming for.
@DDevospartan I've been hearing back and forth that Peter Jackson will and won't be be directing the Hobbit prequel. He's been having issues with New Line Cinema.
But what did you think of that one alteration that Jackson made? Of Gollum throwing the lembas down the cliff and spreading some of the crums on Sam's clothes? That was way out of the ballpark.
I agree. I read the books after seeing the movies and I think Jackson's alteration was not needed. In the commentary he said he felt the scene on the stairs needed some tension and that Gollum should have some sort of pay off (seperating Frodo from Sam).
@DDevospartan Frodo did fight with Gollum when they both reached bowels of Mount Doom in Samoth Naur. Gollum fough with an invisible Frodo when the latter put the ring on his finger.
@67nairb yes yes of course but Frodo did not pulled Gollum to the fire it was Gollum's madness for the ring. it was the ring itself the one who destroyed it.
Wow. if you saw it in the the theatre, do you remember how many people got up and left midway through? I watched this film -- all the way through -- on video a few years back, and that was bad enough.
Thank God for P.J.'s masterpiece; it's light-years removed from this drivel.
@freakybuzz masterpiece yeah right...If you saw the film in the theatre do you remember how many people were mad at the end...let's say even Christopher Lee...the books are a masterpiece I can take a flawed adaptation jackson is far below that.
@aesutton Am I delusional because I do not believe the films are a masterpiece? I know no person around me who has read the books that stands the movies, to have a different opinion does not make me delusional.
2:06 I can't tell you about the One Ring, but I can show you; THROUGH INTERPRETIVE DANCE!
Tripicality 2 weeks ago
"Do you desire it so much already?" Err, as far as I'm conserned Frodo kept the ring for 17 years lol.
TheQuietKnife 1 month ago
Hahahaha, Frodo's WTF face in 1:13 is EPIC!!
RingoDude66 2 months ago
The famous trilogy is so much better
philpism20 2 months ago
These 70s cartoons look so bad
GodOfUnbelief 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gonna watch this movie :)
Citzen92 3 months ago
they really f'd up the voices in this movie. Frodo sounds like a tosser and saruman sounds like freezer from dbz
b0bthekillar 4 months ago
Now THAT is what i call a REAL wizard!
359lillian 5 months ago
Gandalf is really creepy :S
MorrisTheGleek 5 months ago
1:13..HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA, I`M FUCKING DYING OF LAUGHTER XD
Sbrff 5 months ago
I love Frodo's jizzface when Gandalf threw the ring into the fire!
MisterLollercaust 6 months ago
Frodo has some hairyass legs
zeester0101 7 months ago
@zeester0101 Well thats a hobbit for you.
LuxxyLux1 6 months ago
Omg love Gandalf's wizard dance to the Black Speech, can Ian McKellan do that? NOOOO!
violentfille 7 months ago
This version of LOTR is alright but I still like the one by Peter Jackson.
smcneal057 8 months ago
1:13 RAPE.
HellLordBBB 9 months ago 11
@HellLordBBB i loled xD
gartoden 9 months ago
I love this movie. :)
manysocksonfeet 11 months ago
his face at 1:13 :O
speedybastard2 1 year ago
Gandalf told Frodo when he came for this surprise visit in this movie that Gollum might do some good in the end that he does not intend. And Gollum certainly did.
67nairb 1 year ago
Frodo or Gandalf could've had the common courtesy to close the door.
67nairb 1 year ago 11
Gandalf looks like a crazy hobo in this movie :P
sweflies 1 year ago
Never understood why didn't Jackson address that it was nearly 20 years later after Bilbo left Bags End and the time of the Grey Wizard's return. He acted like it was a day or two. Frodo was under the ring influence all that time and stayed the same age but became more isolated and distrusting. That was just horrible. Also he didn't address why come Aragon knew of Frodo. I felt sorry for so many people who couldn't follow the Fellowship.
pharze 1 year ago
:3 I like how Gandalf's pupils change size constantly
ShadowLivesonForever 1 year ago
Peter Jacksons movie does some things better and some things worse. this gives lots of details he missed, while he went for the overarching theme and made that good. both have merit. this movie may seem bad compared to the new films- newsflash: the new films are about as bad compared to the books. there's really just no substitute. from that perspective, anything but the books is like a child copying a masters work sloppily. thumbs up the kid for recognizing something worth trying to copy
DarthRaukrist 1 year ago
What's funny is is that if wasn't for this film, Peter Jackson would of never been inspired to pick up the books and master the later film. So whoever is hating this wonderful work of art for it's time proves to have a mind of an opinionated teenager.
PianistDFelix 1 year ago
This cartoon I actually really like because it looks so realistic! And to introduce a younger child to the Lord of the Rings this is a good way to start instead of showing Jackson's version right away...My brother and I had to read the books first and then we could watch them. I didn't succeed in readingg them all the way before I watched them but I will tell you this is a good movie for starters.
musicalartfreak 1 year ago
Aaaw, c'mon everyone! This is a pretty cute cartoon!
greenpigen 1 year ago
oh, i remember this film! i was born in the year this was made and i did not even know there were books before i grew up a little!
to me, this has much more athmosphere than jacksons movie, although they are both exceptional good work.
xxxblackvenomxxx 1 year ago
I lol'd at 1:13.
And the rotoscoping was not really done well in this...
Rooster0 1 year ago
So what if everyone has eighties haircuts, Aragorn refuses to wear pants, and Boromir turns out to be an evil viking? I'd pick this over Jackson's films any day. This one adheres to the books far better, and Frodo actually stands up to people unlike Jackson's Frodo who needs a hand just crossing a river. :P
w07v3r3dux 1 year ago
@w07v3r3dux My problem was more with Sam looking, acting, and sounding like he had about half the brainpower of an ordinary hobbit. Not to mention the Balrog looking like a Mandril with butterfly wings.
CapyGuy 1 year ago
@w07v3r3dux hi, i am from austria, so aybe my english is not the best. i am 35 years old. and watched this movie 28 years ago, and still love it. its absolute stupid to compare this movie with jacksons films. this movie had a budget as high as 5 minutes cost in the jackson film. but i love this movie till today. it s very cool and atmospheric painted. too bad they only made 1 part
snipermatic 1 year ago
@snipermatic Your english sounds pretty good to me! And I absolutely agree! I'm very sad they didn't make a sequel to this movie, because they put a lot into it, and it still looks good today!
w07v3r3dux 1 year ago 2
@w07v3r3dux one day, for shitz and giggles i thought to make an unnoficial sequel, and im planning to ask Bakshi himself to lay me a copy of the script (this movie was intended to be in 2 parts why he wouldnt have the second part?), rent some horses, and make some cosplays and trace everything! it would be fun...
but i bet Bakshi wouldnt have the work of scanning every page of the goddamn script.
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 3 months ago
@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa Well, he lives in my town, and I've met him a couple of times, I could ask him for you. Lol but yeah I'm really bummed that he didn't get to do the rest of the movies!
nikolewuzhere 2 months ago
I wouldn't mind it if it weren't for all the overexaggurated expressions everyone seems to make. "Oh Gandalf, it's really you!" *does a twirly dance*. "sigh" lol.
zurox407 1 year ago
oh my gosh. rotoscoping to the max
PatrickJForrest 1 year ago
@dreadevil007 It's from 1978, do you really think they had superior animations back then?
MariusMMS 1 year ago
@MariusMMS this stupid idiots compare a lovely handpainted movie from 78 to a computer generated film of these days. i love the bakshi movie and his atmosphere
snipermatic 1 year ago
While extremely melodramatic, it's not actually that bad.
Crusader1089 1 year ago
hobbits have hairy feet, but hairy legs too? o_O xD
aoiniina 1 year ago
@aoiniina well, hobbits or not, people have hairy legs too, especially males, and since Frodo IS a male...well, there ya go!
kilnorc 1 year ago
is that creepy old geezer suppose to be gandalf? he's more like an expressionless soulless sociopath
GothHaven 1 year ago
what the fothermucking hell is this crappy piece of shit?
GothHaven 1 year ago
Ash nazg durbatulûk,
ash nazg gimbatul
ash nazg thrakatulûk,
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
Can't credit be given to this film for being well-animated? At the time this was made, epic story lines couldn't be shot in live action without looking dated or insanely fake. Animation has a certain measure of flexibility to it, and sometimes it's better to use it rather than what's at hand. Sure, this isn't fantastic, but worse movies were hailed as classics in the last five months alone.
Aimingforcute 1 year ago 4
awesome
SANAO777 1 year ago
All these comments are very philosophical and intense.
My contribution consists simply of
OMG, Frodo is so cute!
bluesun7777 1 year ago 10
@bluesun7777 He really was. The part when he first sees Gandalf is fantastically animated, haha.
Aimingforcute 1 year ago 2
Haha, the facial expressions through out this whole thing are hilarious.
hxcharrypotterfan123 1 year ago 11
@hxcharrypotterfan123 They are so much better than the facial expressions from Elijah Wood.
brootly 6 months ago
@brootly Nej asso Elijah äger i dem andra filmerna :)
MorrisTheGleek 5 months ago
How many of you are awarre that this was the work of Ralph "fFitz The Cat" Bakshi? Prior to this, nobody had even DARED to attempt this, and give the lad his due here, he's made a pretty decent effort , just a great pity that he couldn't afford to make the other part ( we were only just starting to get back into the Blockbuster movie Era, with Star Wars and Superman)
Kopsinger 1 year ago 4
I haven't read the books, but i must say: Peter Jackson's work with the Lord of The Rings triology.... BEST SHIT EVER MADE!
dreiem1 1 year ago
I bet half of the ''the Peter Jackson films were better gang'' have not even read the book.
This film isn't bad and for someone who likes the books a lot, it is pretty good and remains rather true to them.
alanjazzfan 2 years ago
You're damn right!
"The Peter Jackson films were better gang " are pointless and dumb.. Most of them don't know shit about the other books( for example the Silmarillion). The hairy fat guy has sold out the saga . :(
ColdSpring1984 2 years ago 3
@ColdSpring1984
That's funny, I've read all the books including the Silmarillion and I'm perfectly willing to say that the Peter Jackson adaptations are better. Go figure
MasterofArda 11 months ago
1:13 Frodos face LOL!
GameMan777 2 years ago
i preferd this to the remake by peter jackson as this is not as long and pointless pluss it stays more true to the book. but then again for the time The remake was epic with all it ground breaking CGI but then u watch it again and agian and you end up missing this Strange Cartoon with it hints of live action and wounder where did he go wrong to make a film with all this epic CGI and hang on the edge susspense a long and painful ride in to bordum?
welshcelt666 2 years ago 2
Frodo's face at 1:13 is hilarious. I like the animation in this movie. Too bad they didn't have more of it and less rotoscoping.
GerryIsNear 2 years ago
this has a really unique animation style
the movements are kind of overstated, but it looks really good
Wykfo 2 years ago 2
Gandalf toched the One Ring! THE WORLD'S END IS COMING!
4dv3ntur3r 2 years ago
1:13 HOLY SH*T!!!
VladimirVLD 2 years ago
Hey pretty cool, I liked it =D ... But it's pretty strange to see Gandalf holding the ring, because he didn't touch it...
yondaiime 2 years ago
This was one of my favouite films when I was a kid, and Its a big shame they didnt get to finish it. If they had, I would no doubt say it is better than Jacksons version. When I first found out LOTR was being made by Jackson I was DYING for him to base Galdolf & Gollom on this version, and I was disappointed he didnt. I actually prefer ALL the characters in the animated one.
WASP021 2 years ago
Yeah, it stays more true to the novels, but I still prefer Jackson's version.
taxmonkey123 2 years ago 3
Stays to the novels?
Gandalf TOUCHES THE RING! So far on stay to the novel...
The Bakshi movie is quite ok, beside the strange looking ork-scenes and stuff.
But the Peter Jackson Movie is a Masterpiece.
(Beside of the glitches like Galadriel scene,
theoden super fast reward oldening, and denethor the 400meter sprintiing and than basejumping human torch.)
But a competition may be unfair,
because of the different time, computer stuff, different amount of money, etc.
oxking0815 2 years ago 4
The Rankin & Bass cartoon beats them both. Come on, orc musical numbers!
oldbluescott 2 years ago
@oldbluescott
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha heh heh............................................no
MasterofArda 11 months ago
Well Oxking, it isn;t 100% close to the book but it DOES stay true to the novel and changes very little (though don't get me started on sAruman the red...).
The best version is the ultra-close radio version with Sir Michael Hordern and Ian Holm.
alanjazzfan 2 years ago
@oxking0815 I am not gonna say that this stays too close to the novel but Jackson further differs sometimes you can change a detail or a thing or two and do not affect the spirit of characters and novel, jackson did quite the contraire.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
Frodo meets Gandalf? description sucks. that's bilbo, not frodo
musadude 2 years ago
i like this animated movie better than the jackson version
bossenhei 2 years ago
Whoa....Gandalf at 2:24 hugging himself. Weird.
IllustriousSeven 2 years ago
LOL
holypally33 2 years ago
1:14 lol
BulletsForBrains 2 years ago
ya the hobbits are way better in the books, this movie makes them lame and gay, frodo is way more wise
mougler14 2 years ago
Gandalf'ın gözlerine ne olmuş öyle?! Tövbe estağfurullah çarpık gibi bakıyo :D
bloom00 2 years ago
It's not a great movie, but it's really not as bad as people make it out to be. I'm really sick of the fans of the Jackson films that come here to bash this movie. No, it's not as good as the Jackson-version(s), but some people like it.
I watched this way before the first live action film was even announced, so it's kinda nostalgic to watch. It has many flaws, but I think it's an enjoyable film to watch.
Thapzaa 2 years ago 24
@Thapzaa Also, the first time peter jackson made contact with the lord of the rings was with this movie, if it was for this the live action lord of the rings could have turned out much different.
adrianocounter 1 year ago
@Thapzaa Did you see it in theaters when it first released around Christmas time 1978?
67nairb 1 year ago
If they were going to make the whole movie by first filming live actors, why not just make the movie in damn live action? Cartoon characters aren't meant to move realistically, it's distracting. If this movie was just traditionally animated, it'd be a bit better.
SergeantLuke 2 years ago
Ya know I've read the books many times and i don't remember the Samwise Gamgee character being such an annoying retard like he is in this movie. The live action Peter Jackson movies did a much better job with him though.
HelloFade2 2 years ago 7
The PJ film just used Gimli for comic relief instead.
wight1984 2 years ago 3
@HelloFade2 Yes indeed but only with him, it destroyed almost everyone else so why complain? Do you want a list? Theoden, Denethor, Faramir or Aragorn...I do dare everyone who read the books to tell me they are as good in the movie as in the novel.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
1:13 the look on his face
BurNiNgBAssisT86 2 years ago
= O
holypally33 2 years ago
damn, the animation of this is unbelievable
videojudge01 2 years ago
What are the name of all these movies?
I can't seem to find them anywhere.
I mean all the movies, from the beginning to the end(from when frodo gets the ring until its destroyed).
Sokan1993 2 years ago
Hey,the movies may not have been a good adaption but they were still good
SuperPugman 2 years ago
@SuperPugman That is a very well done comment if only more people could come up with that concept.
DDevospartan 10 months ago
uhm, lol. look at the difference between the gandalf in jackson's and this gandalf. this gandalf looks scary, while jackson's gandalf looks good hearted, and helpfull... why did they do that lol?
Alpstarr50 2 years ago 4
I don't see why this version is so despised :P I love it, and it IS a children's cartoon, of course it's going to have some immature moments.
Sephiralen 2 years ago
AHAHAHA Look at gandalf's eyes AHAHA
Bakoumis 2 years ago 2
holy crap that freacked me out!
Eagle0videos 2 years ago
1:13
I stopped there
ravemario 2 years ago
1978, Year of The Horse!
AceofSaintcanard84 3 years ago
hehe they forget to close the door
TobitoMadara 3 years ago 5
lawl, you're right XD
tarkeke 2 years ago 2
who made this version of LOR?
Lonelygstar 3 years ago
Bakshi did this one
Darwinsmistake 3 years ago
Ralph Bakshi. And its superior to the live action ones in some respects. Music is better, especially the music during the fight at Helms Deep when Aragorn, Theoden and the remaining men charge from the Glittering Caves and try to fight off the Orcs.
One of my few beefs with this version is that the orcs kinda look like Tusken Raiders a bit. But thats just nitpicking really. Check this film out if you haven't yet.
alucard624 2 years ago 2
frodos voice was the only one i ever thought worked
powerfrenzy 3 years ago
This version is far more loyal to Tolkien. The PJ film not even has the right colors. The acting is perfect, because It´s about FEAR.
adoroel77 3 years ago 4
This is so old xD I think the nazgul are ugly here. But it was good in 1978
Alishondra 3 years ago
At least the hobbits in this film didn't make me want to vomit blood, the looks frodo and sam gave it each other in PJ's version kinda spoiled that film for me. This version was far from perfect but it had a lot of good points, the music was very original and personally I loved the way it blended real life footage and animation. It was ashame Bakshi never had enough money to make the film properly.
thenoize 3 years ago 2
I can't believe animated characters could suck at acting!
RichardKleiner 3 years ago
This cartoon was bad but Jackson's film did leave out alot of material and make alot alterations. Especially in LOTR: THE RETURN OF THE KING when Gollum, Frdo and Sam are climbing up the stairs of Cirith Ungol. That scene where Gollum threw the lembas down the cracks of Cirith Ungol and spread some of the crumbs on Sam's clothes to trick Frodo into thinking that he betrayed them on their quest to Mordor and to send Sam home didn't happen in Tolkien's book.
67nairb 3 years ago
there's never going to be a literal and word for word adaptation of any book. That's why it's an adaptation. It's adapted to accomodate the movie better.
Although sometimes, producers make terrible changes to the original story. But I loved Jackson's LoTR, and, no I haven't read the books. And Bakshi's movie seems to be too "artistic" and not very exciting.
RichardKleiner 3 years ago
then you should try to read them, its far better than the PJ movies
hopeshadow666 3 years ago
Shut up. There are going to be changes, but if perhaps if you had actually READ the books you'd know how terrible Peter Jackson's changes were. Turning one of the most brilliant books ever written in the English language into an action flick with one liners like "I AM NO MAN!" is by no means a good adaptation. Removing this is necessary, but simplifying things for the retard crowed isn't.
EatMyPwn 2 years ago 2
Typo correction: "crowd". Sorry about that one.
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
I agree EatMyPwn : )
Sephiralen 2 years ago
:D: :D :D
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
I have read those books. Before you were born. I don't really like Ralph Bakshis version of the lord of the rings or anything else he did.
"most brilliant books ever written in the English language into an action flick"
You're an elitist asshole whose self righteous drivel really isn't worth much!
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
Please point out the "elitism". Douchebag.
I never said these were particularly good. I said they're better than Peter Jackson's flicks.
Thinking somethings better than something else doesn't make me a full blown elitist. Do you like Lord of the Rings better than- say- if you want to talk about a high fantasy trilogy that's often used- Star Wars? If so, you're an elitist fuck.
I think Tolkien's books were some of the best books ever written, and that Jackson's films were stupid. Fucking dolt.
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
Please point out the "elitism". Douchebag.
Look at the why the creep responds to criticism!
"think Tolkien's books were some of the best books ever written, and that Jackson's films were stupid."'
I disagree. I thought they were pretty well done.
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
You missed the point.
And you called me an elitist in defense of your views. Me denying being an elitist shouldn't be surprising at all, unless you're a fucking idiot.
"Oh man, look at this creep! He responded to inaccurate criticism by pointing out the inaccuracies in the criticism! How surprising!" Go die in a ditch, you useless shell of a human being.
What, do you have like, 3 opinions? "This kids a douchebag, I love Peter Jackson, I like football".
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
Comment removed
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
Go die in a ditch, you useless shell of a human being.
Your mother suck cocks in hell. What a nice person you must be in person! So what exactly is the problem with Peter Jacksons adaptations? Other than anyone who doesn't agree with you is a retard? Can you express yourself in a more adult way? I doubt it!
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
Wow, and you are calling him childish, Solomon? ''Go die in a ditch'' and ''your mother suck cocks in hell'' ( this 'The Exorcist' quote taken outside of its context is stupid).
EatMyPwn doesn't like the Jackson films. That is fair enough. Infact, the Jackson films, though I like them, are a bastardization of a great story.
alanjazzfan 2 years ago
@alanjazzfan
More of a bastardization than this POS? I think not!
MasterofArda 11 months ago
Express myself in a more adult way? On the internet? If I must. Although you don't seem very adult, considering your taste in movies seems to be on par with a 12 year old who begs his mother to see Transformers.
Apart from the fact that the films were RIDDLED with cinematic cliches (Frodo hanging off the edge of The Crack of Doom after having an epic fight with Gollum, Aragorn is an "unsure hero", corny one liners like "I am no man!", a collective 30 minutes of ring wraith chase scenes) (cont.)
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
"If I must. Although you don't seem very adult, considering your taste in movies seems to be on par with a 12 year old who begs his mother to see Transformers"
The fact I like "the lord of the rings"? Isn't that what we're discussing here? Your right, Tolkien and Tolkien adapations are "for 12 year olds"! You seem to demonstrate that with every post!
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
What is with you and "black and white". I clearly said that Tolkien's books are some of the greatest pieces of English literature ever written. So not only are you a complete idiot- but you have the attention span and memory of a brick.
Besides, you just asked me why the Jackson adaptations were bad, and I just responded.
Oh, and wrong "your/you're". I'll give you that one though, may have just been an accident.
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
He also changed the plot arch to match Star Wars since he couldn't find his own freakin' way to do a three part epic, the soundtrack was John Williams wannabe on the subject of Star Wars, and he spent more time worrying about CG monsters and blue screens than he did the dialogue and consistent plots of the books. Plot holes galore!
Of course I expect the books to be cut and compressed as films. I don't expect them to be turned into Star Wars set in medieval England.
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
@EatMyPwn
I'd rather have all of that than the butchered character of Sam, Julius Elrond Caeser, Chief Aragorn, The Balrog in giant Bunny Slippers, inconsistant animation, (S)Aruman, bad acting, non-animation, Sauron the Knight who says Ni, Boromir the Viking, Tusken Raider Orcs.....I can go on you know, you silly angry hipster :P
MasterofArda 11 months ago
@MasterofArda
Hipsters definitely don't like Lord of the Rings- too conservative. Definitely the part of counter-culture they'd like to pretend to have forgotten.
But once more, I'm not saying these adaptations are better- or maybe I did. My comments were a long time ago- and I don't think these were particularly good. But I think this guy probably gets more credit, considering not only was it a first attempt, but the guy clearly had a greater passion than Jackson did.
EatMyPwn 11 months ago
@MasterofArda
I think more than anything, I'm just disappointing that because of Jackson's insanely disappointing movies (disappointing not only because they changed/altered the plot, but because they were also mediocre films. While the visuals and performances were fantastic, they were terrible paced and the dialogue was stilted. The character archetypes were also bland and generic) there will probably never be another Hollywood crack at adaptations- at least not with the same talent involved.
EatMyPwn 11 months ago
@EatMyPwn
Tell that to Rotten Tomatoes, who gave the films an average of 94% Or to Metacritic, who gave it an average of 91.3% Or the Academy Awards, in which the trilogy was nominated for 30 awards and won 17. Has no passion, you say? Tell that to the crew who spent half a decade to create all the props, sets, and miniatures, in collaboration with Alan Lee and John Howe (I'll assume heard of them). That has less passion, than a couple of sketches traced badly over live action footage?
MasterofArda 11 months ago
@MasterofArda So your argument (as a vehement defender of Peter Jackson, and his apparent creativity), is that a large budget and a lot of time warrant stilted dialogue, mediocre performances out of actors who are normally incredible (lol VM as Aragorn...), and terrible, piss-awful, boring-ass pacing more than a short animated project does? I think you need to contextualize this a little- I'd say Braid has more passion and soul in it than Bulletstorm or Halo.
EatMyPwn 11 months ago
@MasterofArda
Secondly, the Academy award also gave 11 Oscars to The Titanic. And it got a pretty decent rating on Rotten Tomatoes as well. Granted- they also gave 11 to Ben-Hur. Point being, not only are the Oscars inconsistent, but I also remain skeptical of their choices.
As for critical response, I couldn't care less. Most film "experts" are terrible writers, and insanely stupid. I.E. Epert
Bottom line is, they're both bad movies. I wish Kubrick had done 'em.
EatMyPwn 11 months ago
@EatMyPwn
Okay, clearly you've got some sort of vendetta against the guy. What, did he run over your puppy or something? Seriously, you must have the sensitivity of a cockroach, because these are not the opinions held by normal people. And I would bring up more facts to back me up, but I finally realize that it's impossible to debate with the delusional.
PS: It's funny how you called Epert insanely stupid, as he had a similar opinion about the Jackson movies as you. Go figure!
MasterofArda 11 months ago
@MasterofArda
Nope, I just wish he had remained a good director. Dead Alive was hilarious and Heavenly Creatures was a fantastic movie. You see my point here? While I may be a fan of the books, I feel these films have far more of an excuse for being bad- considering they are short-termed animated products. I don't think Jackson's films lived up to being the next "Ben-Hur" as everyone seems to have made them out to be- they were mediocre films. It's MORE disappointing because I love the books.
EatMyPwn 11 months ago
@MasterofArda
But I can tell you're probably a troll, considering your name is "Master of Arda" and you just seemed to pop onto these youtube comment boards with no other purpose than to vehemently defend Jackson's films with silly points like: "Well, the critics liked it! Therefore, it is factually a good film!"
EatMyPwn 11 months ago
@EatMyPwn
1. I prefer the term Olog-hai
2. You've taught me a valuable lesson: you cant argue with the mentally handicapped. Should've learned that from the teabaggers, but oh well :/
3. If critics have no authority in how good a movie is, then who does? You? because if you can deem a movie bad based on your opinion, then everyone else's opinions over rule yours, making it a good movie after all.
4. Now that I'm starting to lose enjoyment from your PMSing, I think i'm my work here is done. CYA!
MasterofArda 11 months ago
@MasterofArda
So you are arguing that The Titanic is a good film?
Talk about PMS...
EatMyPwn 11 months ago
@MasterofArda agreed, even tough i liked the jackson films, Bakshi had a certain ''passion'' because he only did the movie because he loved the books, and tried to be as accurate as possible, but low bugdet and butt-hurt producers didnt let bakshi finish the whole thing and now people bash him and this movie.
it's really sad.
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 3 months ago
@EatMyPwn I actually think like you as the Jackson flicks are clearly overrated, yet somehow find the I am no man as one of the lesser offenders, what about Denethor Aragorn Theoden or Faramir...those for me are the real offenders.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
@DDevospartan
Yeah, seriously! I appreciated Jackson's films visually, and the performances from the cast across the board were incredible. And I can even deal with event changes and plot alterations- Kubrick did it all the time, and his adaptations were the best in film history. But why on earth did Peter Jackson see it necessary to completely change the character archetype of Aragorn, or turn Gimli into an annoying twat, or change the destruction of the ring, or Denathor's archetype? *sigh*
EatMyPwn 1 year ago
@EatMyPwn
I don't know, why did Bakshi butcher even more important characters (cough cough, Sam). Yeah, i'll say that the New Line films took a bunch of liberties with the details, honestly, i don't really care that much, as it still keeps the general spirit of the books, and is still a damn fine movie on its own merits (as opposed to this atrocity). If you expect 100% accuracy from any film adaptation, you're an idiot. 'Nuff said
MasterofArda 11 months ago
@DDevospartan Aragorn looked like an Indian in this LOTR cartoon.
67nairb 1 year ago
@67nairb yeah so what I am not saying that Viggo did not looked better than Aragorn all I a saying is he was not better as Aragorn.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
@DDevospartan What actor do you think would've made a better Aragon? IMHO I thought Viggo Mortonsen was perfect.
67nairb 1 year ago
@67nairb Oh I think you're getting me wrong it is not that I think an actor coulda made a better Aragorn, no Viggo was perfect, it is a writer and a director doind a better LOTR adaptation the thing I am aiming for.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
@DDevospartan I've been hearing back and forth that Peter Jackson will and won't be be directing the Hobbit prequel. He's been having issues with New Line Cinema.
67nairb 1 year ago
But what did you think of that one alteration that Jackson made? Of Gollum throwing the lembas down the cliff and spreading some of the crums on Sam's clothes? That was way out of the ballpark.
67nairb 3 years ago
I agree. I read the books after seeing the movies and I think Jackson's alteration was not needed. In the commentary he said he felt the scene on the stairs needed some tension and that Gollum should have some sort of pay off (seperating Frodo from Sam).
1849149 3 years ago 2
@1849149 DId Jackson say those words in the commentary of the exteneded edition of THE RETURN OF THE KING?
67nairb 1 year ago
i guess PJ did that to only make all of the audience hate gollum some more....
andrew5500 3 years ago
@67nairb do not forget that frodo did not fight with gollum and that by doing that they fucked up the whole the ring destroyed itself message.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
@DDevospartan Frodo did fight with Gollum when they both reached bowels of Mount Doom in Samoth Naur. Gollum fough with an invisible Frodo when the latter put the ring on his finger.
67nairb 1 year ago
@67nairb yes yes of course but Frodo did not pulled Gollum to the fire it was Gollum's madness for the ring. it was the ring itself the one who destroyed it.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
wow, watch frodos face at 1.14, its somethin' special.
dracotharpian 3 years ago
Ahhh, the milking of the giant cow from 2:06 to the end. Good stuff.
Loknar64 3 years ago 3
what???
DiamondHobbit 3 years ago
Ash nazg thrakatuluk and give us lots of money. ;)
FrozenSilence 3 years ago
LOL!!! Classic "bad acting" moves!
The only thing better is when Gandalf gives Frodo the "whites of the eyes" stare.
Notice how in this version he never even explains why he threw the ring in the fire? Smooth move there, Baskhi...sigh.
jjobie 3 years ago
lol, in the book gandalf is like: I will not utter the words of Mordor here in the midst of shier...and in this movie he literally yells it out...=S
tarkeke 2 years ago
What in the name of all sense what that?
No offense to r0batko. Offense to Bashki? Possibly. That was frightening. Of course, my only frame of reference is the Jackson films, so...
ShelleyTheScribbler 3 years ago
love Gandalf
and love LOR the most in the world
choochoobrain1 3 years ago
0:25 Frodo is a little kid.
1:04 Frodo looks like an anime character
1:25 Gandalf starts to look scary
2:12 Gandalf starts to dance!
I love Bakshi and this movie. It may be odd but it's classic! Sure...it's not perfect but at least it's fun to watch.
cutekittygirl 3 years ago 4
1:25, his pupils go mad!!!:/
Erech01 3 years ago
pause at 00:08 LMFAO!
iceblue345 3 years ago
frodo looks mexican...
ecthelion117 3 years ago
Gandalf is REALLY creepy O_O'
mangamadde 3 years ago
wow what the fuck
SpoHunter 3 years ago
LOL, indeed....you shoulda seen this thing in the movie theater :)
jjobie 3 years ago 2
Wow. if you saw it in the the theatre, do you remember how many people got up and left midway through? I watched this film -- all the way through -- on video a few years back, and that was bad enough.
Thank God for P.J.'s masterpiece; it's light-years removed from this drivel.
freakybuzz 3 years ago
@freakybuzz masterpiece yeah right...If you saw the film in the theatre do you remember how many people were mad at the end...let's say even Christopher Lee...the books are a masterpiece I can take a flawed adaptation jackson is far below that.
DDevospartan 1 year ago
@DDevospartan
delusional
aesutton 11 months ago
@aesutton Am I delusional because I do not believe the films are a masterpiece? I know no person around me who has read the books that stands the movies, to have a different opinion does not make me delusional.
DDevospartan 11 months ago
I like Gandalf's little twirl. Really added to the gravity of the situation.
gydorack 3 years ago 10
there was a show?
NintendoMudkip 3 years ago