Kind of cheesy, but I can tell Jackson respects it, seeing how similar his prologue was to this (esp gollum dropping the ring and Isildur at the Great River)
The prologue is fantastic. I love it and always will. Simple yet perfect imo. I was brought up on this as a kid which to a degree explains my love for it. The score is beautiful as well. Yeah its got its faults but the good far outweighs the bad.
To be honest, this is my least favorite movie of Lord of the Rings. I of course prefer Jackson's movies over this one (but who doesn't? lol), but I also prefer Rankin Bass' movies over this one. Yeah I know kill me. But I still do like this movie.
Like Peter Jackson, my first exposure to LOTR was also this great film. It was fantastic and helped keep LOTR in hearts and minds until technology would allow a full scale cinematic version to be created.
Remember EVERYONE back then was trying to come up with a cinematic version of LOTR ... even The Beatles, look it up, so props to this director for delivering even with a dwindling budget and unsupportive studio.
I don't understand why some bash this film especially ever since Peter Jackson's films were released. I liked Peter Jackson's films better, and this film is not as good the newer films, but that doesn't make it bad either. The cartoon is still a great film and in some ways stays more true to the book than Jackson's films. I sometimes wish the cartoon focused on the Fellowship and focus on 1 book instead of cramming 2 books into one movie. But nonetheless it's still a great film.
one day, i tought of doing an animated Zelda movie, but with rotoscoping just like this movie, and when my friend brought Wind Waker for us to play, and i noticed something, the text font on ''an evil wind is rising'' is IDENTICAL to this text font!
and come to think of it, the zelda score kinda resembles this movie's score...
What annoys me about this movie is not the movie itself but rather the director. Later he would claim that Jackson did not give him enough credit, and that Jackson copied him. But Jackson's first and foremost inspiration surely must have been Tolkien. A director does not owe his success the director of one of the earlier adaptations...
but that said I really like this movie, but still prefer Jackson's. But we must remember that Jackson had so much more resources that Bakashi...
I enjoy watching every interpretation of lord of the rings and seeing all the different attempts and ideas. And regarding the small budget this movie was pretty amazing.
I remember watching this when I was 6 (a year before Peter Jackson's version). When PJ's version came out, I kinda got mixed up with the characters since PJ's characters look nothing like them (except for Frodo....kinda) Ahhh.....memories. :)
I will not argue over whose version is better. But let's face it, in order to make a Lord of the Rings movie (real action or animated) that doesn't leave any gaps or go into theory from the person who made the movie, the film itself would have to be, at minimum, 24 hours long. And there is no film out there that long. This means, unfortunately, we have to settle for adaptations
holy shit, i remember watching this like 10 years ago. Good memories, I didn't understand anything about the movie back then, but I remembered it from that day to this for a reason, right?
People keep talking about some movie made by Jackson. Cant understand why , he certainly didnt make a movie about the Lord of the Rings. sure he made a movie where a bunch of Stuff happened , BUT IT WASNT ANYTHING LIKE THE BOOKS.
Bakshi on the other hand captured the essence of the Nobility in the characters.This movie is far greater than the recent so called LoTR trilogy.
Because there was an "Aruman" in the books. Because Legolas saved Aragorn and the four hobbits, not Glorfindel. Because Tom Bombadil and Goldberry don't exist. Let's face it, in terms of honoring the content of the books, Bakshi is no better than Jackson (which is actually understandable, as to do otherwise is near impossible). But in terms of spirit, Jackson's blows Bakshi's out of the water. Just look at his depiction of Sam!
This is not bad! The animations are alot better then most shit released today...
And no1 should even try to claim Jackson didnt copy parts of this movie, because he surely did. Some scenes are almost identical, if not else just as a tribute to this movie (as he has said himself how much he loves this one).
I DO love jacksons movies but would really like to se someone make animated movies that stays true to the books.
@Soulless99 I know i think its awesome i first watched when I was 8 I thought it was real scary and tbh it still is kinda freaky... for a cartoon!! lol the black riders i think though are a lot scarier than the movie ones and the orcs are fucking well they give me goosebumps lol. and the blood! the blood is awesome lmao :D
@Soulless99 "animations are alot [sic] better"??? There's maybe 4 or 5 legitimate animated shots in this segment. Everything else is a half-assed shadow play using costumes left over from a high school play.
Its logical to say that Jacksons film is better. But taking everything in account this animation succeeds where Jacksons heavily fails! Mostly its the overal darker and fearful ambiance. Which Jacksons lacks totally!!
And its starts with the intro which is WAY better than Jackson. First of all the voice over simply blasts Cates to pieces. The music has a darker feel to it and i seriously like the artistic spind around the looks.
Sure its lacky, but mostly because of the time and budget
Fearful ambience? The first time I watched this, I was too busy trying to figure out what the hell was going on to notice any "fearful ambience." And the second time I watched this, I was too busy waiting for Sauron and Boromir to start shouting "Ni!" And don't even get me started on how much I laughed when he showed the Balrog. The only remotely "fearful" character in this movie is Sam, and he just got me pissed at Bakshi for butchering his character!
yeah because that whining voice of cate blanchet is WAY better than the Bakshi intro right?
so whats next? one of your favourite directors is Ronald Emmerich or something? and your favourite movie of all time? transformers?.. no.. not the animation classic.. that michael bay piece of crap
why dont you go play some call of duty with your 8 year old friends and leave the actual art to the people that grew up with
Well, if you consider art to be calling the same character two different names half the time for some inexplicable reason, then I'm glad the rest of the world ignores your opinion of art, and that this embarresment to Tolkien has been forgotten except you fanboys, and those like me who can't purge the bad memories.
P.S. Good God, you sure do like making assumptions of me. I suppose a rational critique of this film is just to much for you, huh?
@MasterofArda That award goes to Rankin-Bass and don't ever say otherwise,don't ever say that the kiddie Return of the King is better!. This version got the narrative correct save the useless Tom Bombadil,unnecessary Glorfindel, and skip-page-and-miss Arwen.,It also didn't drag and never went over the top in important battles and added a nice eerie atmosphere at appropriate times. It's not a good film,but it's a steampile of crap like you haters want it to be
Yeah, but the thing about the kiddie Return of the King was that it was made.....for kids. Besides, Rankin-Bass also made the Hobbit, which makes them cool in my books. As for narrative, the pacing is absolutely atrocious and major plot points are barely explained, because Bakshi assumes the audience has already read the book. To make things MORE confusing, Bakshi calls one of the main characters by TWO DIFFERENT NAMES! It fails at basic story telling.
@MasterofArda Yes well The Hobbit was good,but WIzards and Fire and Ice were better. Also Return of the King horrifically moved from plot to plot,just like that which nullifies all story-telling and just like Bakshi it was fast paced and explained nothing.
Just because it's made for kids does not mean it should be riddled with no likable characters or development and break from the source material. Songs solve nothing
Wizards was alright. still used that god-awful looking tinting technique Bakshi loves, but the rest of it was fine. Fire and Ice was entertaining, but not a good film by any means. This, my friend, is an abomination. Maybe the Rankin-Bass ROTK was bad, but give them credit: at least they took the time to ACTUALLY ANIMATE THE MOVIE, so at least it looked good on mute.
That's an exaggeration. Besides, the book actually explained that Strider was simply a pseudonym for Aragorn, and it doesn't take a genius to tell that "Mithrandir" is an elvish name for Gandalf. But "Saruman" and "Aruman"? Was Aruman in the books? Is it elvish for something? Just...why?
The excutive Powers That Be wanted Ralph Bakshi to change Saruman's name to Aruman, because they felt that "Saruman" and "Sauron" sounded too similar and they didn't want viewers to get confused. They eventually changed their minds and most of the dialogue that used the name "Aruman" was re-recorded, but they didn't get it all. So it's just an error.
I had this as a kid, I noticed jackson flat out copied parts of this. Don't try telling me because its from the same book...The bit with "proud feet" and some other shit i can't remember, flat out copying.
@courtney359 Yup. And the Return of the King was done by the guys who did the Animated Hobbit musical. As much as I like the Hobbit movie, the style really doesn't work with the much darker LOTR series.
This was a great animated movie in its time, no matter what the critics said (then in the 70's). Despite the many flaws that could be found in it, it had many incredible appealing traits. It had a dark streak to it, quite a unique style of its own, a dramatic flair, some very attractive and mysterious bakcground paintings, none of the syrop found in many disney comparable films. The negative comments said by some young kids here (and some not so young) are understandable, but out of context.
Call me ignorant, I ha no idea this existed until today, and I've seen the movies several times and read at least 1.5 of the books. (Guilty, I skipped a lot of it... it was a long time ago.)
i like how mysterious sauron is in this version:) when i as a kid and first saw this one i was dienig to see how sauron looked like:D so when the jacksson movies came out i was like "omg" when they just showed sauron right at the beginning^^
Good movie,great blend of live and animated.Always a backbone for later movies.First came the books,then this and most recent movies.All were masterpieces for their time and should be admired :-)
did they ever make a second part to this cartoon? i own it at home and i wanna see another one. so did they or no? someone please give me an answer lol
@sorlikow the return of the king follow up was made by someone else and...well see it for yourself its on youtube but beware it might ruin your childhood dreams...like it did to me a few months ago :(
it's a good beginning for a 70's movie...off course he coldn't make a movie like peter jackson did,because there were no big resources (as special effects or computer graphic)
This silhouette/rotoscope animation would be great to see for a number of different stories. It may not have been the best fit for LOTR, but its too visually interesting to not use for something.
I think we can all agree that Bass-Rankin should rot in hell for what they did to the Hobbit and The Return of the King.....They are more evil than Sauron...
I used to watch this many times as a kid myself! What I remember quite distinctly is the image of Prince Isildur when he picks up the ring and holds it in his hand as you can see in the film.....I get the sense that looking at his figure (perhaps silhouette-like) and his posture he seems fairly gentle and sensitive which is how I feel myself for the most part.
OMG I love this version used to watch it so much as a kid - the soundtrack is so good, and the unique animation! so so good its a real shame they never did the 2nd half
Admittedly, Jackson's movies flesh out the characters, story and epicness of the LOTR books more completely. However, his version is heavily influenced by Baski's excellent animation, eg check out the scene were the hobbits meet the black rider on the road to Bree. Also, the technique of animating on to negatives for the black riders, orks and some of the warriors at Helm's Deep is truly masterful. A painstaking job, but a worthy one.
I've seen the animation several times and loved it. As good as Peter Jackson's LOTR, I can't sit through any of them without nodding off. I much prefer the animation.
I've seen the animation several times and loved it. As good as Peter Jackson's LOTR, I can't sit through any of them without nodding off. I much prefer the animation.
It has been pointed out before but there´s a small error here in the story.
It says that the Dark Lord Sauron learned how to make the master ring after the other rings where forged.
That´s not entirely true. In the book it is clearly stated that it was Sauron in the disguise of Annatar, who thought the great elven smith Celebrimbor how to make the rings of power not the other way around.
This was the best we could hope for in '78. There is no comparison between Bakshi's and Jackon's versions. They're jus different. And, as has been commented already, Bakshi was on a very limited budget and did an admirable job with what he had.
This was my introduction to the saga. It gave my mind a good base before reading the books. And until the recent movies came out, it was unsurpassed. It was the first time I had seen rotoscoping.
I kind of feel sorry for small chidren today, as they are going to have the whole story on any format, and production designers dictating the limits to young imaginations.
Jackson initially denied ever seeing this film when in fact it was his first introduction to the story, which he later admitted. Looking at this, I'm struck how similar this prologue is to the Jackson version. There is no prologue in the book.
Even though there is no prologue in the book, there has to be one so even a newbe att TLOTR understands the story, every moviefan, or director would know that. This is nothing but a coinsidens, to make the whole story make sence (you don't need a prologue in a book, since you always have the chance to turn back the pages).
Anybody notice how "jewish" this film is? Like it's director. All the characters look like the hebrews from all those old religious movies and sound like them too.
@gorbbe1 -- yeah, bad compared to the PJ trilogy, which was almost as genius as the books themselves. but back when i was a kid, this was the shit. and one of only a sliver of movies that depicted the realm of fantasy.
Viewing this video is clear where Peter Jackson was inspired to do the intro of his trilogy, but still the PJ version is infinitely better (and fuller) than Bakshi.
yes the pj films are good. but if your of a certain age and you have an imagination this cartoon was captivating. children should see things like this where the production perfect thamks to a shed load of money. it has its own charm.
this animated version was classic magical filmmaking and was a great family movie, even if most of it was very intense and dark. the live-action films will always be the best!!!!
WHAT! rubbish... If you like this intro, u should check out the intro for the lord of the rings fan film, "halifirien". It's like this... only better...
all you people should grow up. Ralph Bakshi made this lotr animation awsome and Peter Jackson made epic movies about it as well. and at the end of the day they both made great lotr movies so stop arguing about who had the better movies.
Jacksons is better, there is no argument, however that is not to say Bakshi should be insulted. He was creative, and did a fine job with the resources he had.
@amyinarms fuck off, jackon's version has become dated the year after it was released. plus it has no atmosphere at all. Cheesy, cheesy and more cheesy. the bakshi version has a much darker atmosphere and tone and even the music is better not the cliche heroic fanfares or random celtic chick-moaning. At least the bakshi version did not stoop to lame as fuck comic relief moments or pointless, charismaf-free elves.
Any serious critic who put aside nostalgia would agree that Jackson's version was highly superior to Bakshi's. This one sounds like a Disney movie and is laughable at many parts.
I think this version is much more true to the book and its lore than Jakcson's version is. A pity they were on such a thin budget and in such a hurry that they couldn't grant the film more time, and a sequel.
I respectfully disagree, I tend to view Jackson's verison to be truer to the books, even though I found this prologue to be interesting nonetheless. But it is somewhat inaccurate to the books:
1. According to the books and Jackson, Sauron was the one who tricked the Elves into creating the rings while he created the One Ring.
2. The Last Alliance of Men and Elves were not losing as presented, instead they had Sauron under siege for 7 years before coming down from the Black Tower.
I dont know about you assface, but i got pretty fucking tired of watching that little faggot elija wood just run around and look like a devistated junkie for 3 whole movies.
Rofl, neither are perfect adaptations, but at least Bakshi tried. Jackson is just an arrogant prick who sucked the Academies dick to get a bunch of Oscars and riddled what was original the greatest literary trilogy of all time with cinematic cliches. "OH LOL, SO LETS HAVE FRODO AND GOLLUM HAVE AN EPIC BATTLE OVER THE CRACK OF DOOM! OH, AND IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE FRODO HANGING BY ONE HAND OVER THE LAVA! 12 YEAR OLDS LOVE THAT!" Visually they were impressive, and Ian McKellen was (cont.)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
brilliant, but apart from that Jacksons films were a mess to anyone that's ever seen any more than 3 films and has an IQ higher than that of a brick.
Fucking awful.
Once more, not saying that this was particularly good- but at least it had something going for it- at least Backshi wasn't an arrogant PRICK about it.
That's pretty irrelevant, isn't it? I can't picture someone asking someone how much they get laid over youtube getting laid all that much, either.
No one on youtube gives a fuck about your social life, and I didn't ask. My qualm is with the dipshits going on about how much they love Peter Jackson's cock. Not with how much poon you get- fucking idiot.
I think you belong on Twitter or Myspace. Those are good fag sites involving people that love gossiping on the internet.
I Think Peter Jackson watched this version and , ...Da da daaaaa Remade the it ? He cut the same parts out of the fellowship..
He did how ever add a bunch of stuff in the two towers that was nt in the Tolkin's story. The return of the king... That whole pathes of the dead part , The Oath breakers ..was DUMB
it seems more eerie, but Jackson's opening was pretty boss. Cate Blanchetts voice was beautiful, and overpowering. Also, the first war of the ring depicted in his opening was by far the best of the battle scenes in all three movies.
Actually, Sauron was the one who taught the Elvin smiths how to forge the nine rings for men; the seven rings for dwarfs; and the three rings for the tall elves. Sauron then forged the one-ring to "in the darkness bind them." I have no idea why they changed this part of the story. It wouldn't have taken that much longer to explain the back story properly. Oh well, edit-room cuts are often mysterious and rife with folly.
I can't stand this movie. I saw this movie all the way through once but I can never watch it again. It gives me such a terrible headache. The Hobbit, I can deal with and Return of the King was just plain stupid.
He may. But he is ugly and with that comes Frodos wonderful statement in the Dancing Pony at Bree, where he says that if Strider was an agent of Mordor, the would have taken care to send someone less ungainly...
I can stand people who knock this version without all the cgi I still think this is better than Jacksons. Bakashi really captured the fantasy and drkrness of the novel!
dude every one has their own opinion. I like this cartoon and i love the movies. So dont flame a guy just because he isn't the same opinion as you are.
i agree mate,i went to see this in the cinema when i was only 6 or 7 and i still love it,but why did he never make the follow up was that never planned
I grew up with although Im not as old you I still love it.
I know its real shame he never completed it. I think it took allot out of him while making it so I guess he didnt want to touch it again. I would love to see him complete all he has left is the return of the king and it would complete his underrated version brilliantly.
This makes me want to hurt someone.
Owlexvictim 1 week ago
This was the movie that got me reading the books so for no other reason, this movie is fantastic!
SatiricalStewie 2 weeks ago
its a cool thing
MrBigDude26 2 weeks ago
Kind of cheesy, but I can tell Jackson respects it, seeing how similar his prologue was to this (esp gollum dropping the ring and Isildur at the Great River)
gleelover4 3 weeks ago
Ohhh... are you indeed my love!!!
Littlelambism 1 month ago
The prologue is fantastic. I love it and always will. Simple yet perfect imo. I was brought up on this as a kid which to a degree explains my love for it. The score is beautiful as well. Yeah its got its faults but the good far outweighs the bad.
Shagrat65 1 month ago
our birthday present. talk about sociopath. yikes.
TeslaKuhn33 1 month ago
To be honest, this is my least favorite movie of Lord of the Rings. I of course prefer Jackson's movies over this one (but who doesn't? lol), but I also prefer Rankin Bass' movies over this one. Yeah I know kill me. But I still do like this movie.
JupiterTheatre 1 month ago
Like Peter Jackson, my first exposure to LOTR was also this great film. It was fantastic and helped keep LOTR in hearts and minds until technology would allow a full scale cinematic version to be created.
Remember EVERYONE back then was trying to come up with a cinematic version of LOTR ... even The Beatles, look it up, so props to this director for delivering even with a dwindling budget and unsupportive studio.
joeylodes 2 months ago
I don't understand why some bash this film especially ever since Peter Jackson's films were released. I liked Peter Jackson's films better, and this film is not as good the newer films, but that doesn't make it bad either. The cartoon is still a great film and in some ways stays more true to the book than Jackson's films. I sometimes wish the cartoon focused on the Fellowship and focus on 1 book instead of cramming 2 books into one movie. But nonetheless it's still a great film.
Yabuturtle 3 months ago
i noticed a very strange and intriguing trivia,
one day, i tought of doing an animated Zelda movie, but with rotoscoping just like this movie, and when my friend brought Wind Waker for us to play, and i noticed something, the text font on ''an evil wind is rising'' is IDENTICAL to this text font!
and come to think of it, the zelda score kinda resembles this movie's score...
is miyamoto a Bakshi's LOTR fan? really?
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 3 months ago
Sounds like Anthony Hopkins voice... a distinguished english narrator, huh?
zappinger 6 months ago
@zappinger i thought it sounded more like alec guiness, who played the obi wan kinobe in the original starwars trilogy
WNSCProductions 5 months ago
What annoys me about this movie is not the movie itself but rather the director. Later he would claim that Jackson did not give him enough credit, and that Jackson copied him. But Jackson's first and foremost inspiration surely must have been Tolkien. A director does not owe his success the director of one of the earlier adaptations...
but that said I really like this movie, but still prefer Jackson's. But we must remember that Jackson had so much more resources that Bakashi...
Bozo2756 6 months ago
prefer this one. so much better
TomValedro 6 months ago
I enjoy watching every interpretation of lord of the rings and seeing all the different attempts and ideas. And regarding the small budget this movie was pretty amazing.
niefali 9 months ago
I remember watching this when I was 6 (a year before Peter Jackson's version). When PJ's version came out, I kinda got mixed up with the characters since PJ's characters look nothing like them (except for Frodo....kinda) Ahhh.....memories. :)
mizzfreakster96 9 months ago
I will not argue over whose version is better. But let's face it, in order to make a Lord of the Rings movie (real action or animated) that doesn't leave any gaps or go into theory from the person who made the movie, the film itself would have to be, at minimum, 24 hours long. And there is no film out there that long. This means, unfortunately, we have to settle for adaptations
BuckWilliams17 10 months ago 2
holy shit, i remember watching this like 10 years ago. Good memories, I didn't understand anything about the movie back then, but I remembered it from that day to this for a reason, right?
audun0905 10 months ago
If only Elendil and Gil-galad bought Sauron a shrubbery. This whole crisis could've been averted.
MasterofArda 11 months ago
Totally awful
dusk1234567890 11 months ago
People keep talking about some movie made by Jackson. Cant understand why , he certainly didnt make a movie about the Lord of the Rings. sure he made a movie where a bunch of Stuff happened , BUT IT WASNT ANYTHING LIKE THE BOOKS.
Bakshi on the other hand captured the essence of the Nobility in the characters.This movie is far greater than the recent so called LoTR trilogy.
dubyajay13 1 year ago
@dubyajay13
Because there was an "Aruman" in the books. Because Legolas saved Aragorn and the four hobbits, not Glorfindel. Because Tom Bombadil and Goldberry don't exist. Let's face it, in terms of honoring the content of the books, Bakshi is no better than Jackson (which is actually understandable, as to do otherwise is near impossible). But in terms of spirit, Jackson's blows Bakshi's out of the water. Just look at his depiction of Sam!
MasterofArda 11 months ago
SO.. Is Smeagol a homosexual? WHat man goes around calling his mate his love?
RHeath111 1 year ago
Why does the title theme sound like a mashup of Young Frankenstein and Hogan's Heroes?
gamesDAMNED 1 year ago
This is not bad! The animations are alot better then most shit released today...
And no1 should even try to claim Jackson didnt copy parts of this movie, because he surely did. Some scenes are almost identical, if not else just as a tribute to this movie (as he has said himself how much he loves this one).
I DO love jacksons movies but would really like to se someone make animated movies that stays true to the books.
Soulless99 1 year ago 29
@Soulless99 I know i think its awesome i first watched when I was 8 I thought it was real scary and tbh it still is kinda freaky... for a cartoon!! lol the black riders i think though are a lot scarier than the movie ones and the orcs are fucking well they give me goosebumps lol. and the blood! the blood is awesome lmao :D
emmatuck 5 months ago
@Soulless99 "animations are alot [sic] better"??? There's maybe 4 or 5 legitimate animated shots in this segment. Everything else is a half-assed shadow play using costumes left over from a high school play.
MisterMisc 3 weeks ago
@MisterMisc
Im talking about the movie, not just this segment. a lot of animation drawn today are a lot worse. No need to be overly hostile about it.
Soulless99 3 weeks ago
Its logical to say that Jacksons film is better. But taking everything in account this animation succeeds where Jacksons heavily fails! Mostly its the overal darker and fearful ambiance. Which Jacksons lacks totally!!
And its starts with the intro which is WAY better than Jackson. First of all the voice over simply blasts Cates to pieces. The music has a darker feel to it and i seriously like the artistic spind around the looks.
Sure its lacky, but mostly because of the time and budget
TylerNessss 1 year ago
@TylerNessss
Fearful ambience? The first time I watched this, I was too busy trying to figure out what the hell was going on to notice any "fearful ambience." And the second time I watched this, I was too busy waiting for Sauron and Boromir to start shouting "Ni!" And don't even get me started on how much I laughed when he showed the Balrog. The only remotely "fearful" character in this movie is Sam, and he just got me pissed at Bakshi for butchering his character!
MasterofArda 11 months ago
@MasterofArda
yeah because that whining voice of cate blanchet is WAY better than the Bakshi intro right?
so whats next? one of your favourite directors is Ronald Emmerich or something? and your favourite movie of all time? transformers?.. no.. not the animation classic.. that michael bay piece of crap
why dont you go play some call of duty with your 8 year old friends and leave the actual art to the people that grew up with
TylerNessss 11 months ago
@TylerNessss
Well, if you consider art to be calling the same character two different names half the time for some inexplicable reason, then I'm glad the rest of the world ignores your opinion of art, and that this embarresment to Tolkien has been forgotten except you fanboys, and those like me who can't purge the bad memories.
P.S. Good God, you sure do like making assumptions of me. I suppose a rational critique of this film is just to much for you, huh?
MasterofArda 11 months ago
@MasterofArda That award goes to Rankin-Bass and don't ever say otherwise,don't ever say that the kiddie Return of the King is better!. This version got the narrative correct save the useless Tom Bombadil,unnecessary Glorfindel, and skip-page-and-miss Arwen.,It also didn't drag and never went over the top in important battles and added a nice eerie atmosphere at appropriate times. It's not a good film,but it's a steampile of crap like you haters want it to be
PJ's is better,but this is good
Warriorcats64 8 months ago
@Warriorcats64
Yeah, but the thing about the kiddie Return of the King was that it was made.....for kids. Besides, Rankin-Bass also made the Hobbit, which makes them cool in my books. As for narrative, the pacing is absolutely atrocious and major plot points are barely explained, because Bakshi assumes the audience has already read the book. To make things MORE confusing, Bakshi calls one of the main characters by TWO DIFFERENT NAMES! It fails at basic story telling.
MasterofArda 8 months ago
@MasterofArda Yes well The Hobbit was good,but WIzards and Fire and Ice were better. Also Return of the King horrifically moved from plot to plot,just like that which nullifies all story-telling and just like Bakshi it was fast paced and explained nothing.
Just because it's made for kids does not mean it should be riddled with no likable characters or development and break from the source material. Songs solve nothing
And a few scenes actually do slow the pace down
Warriorcats64 8 months ago
@Warriorcats64
Wizards was alright. still used that god-awful looking tinting technique Bakshi loves, but the rest of it was fine. Fire and Ice was entertaining, but not a good film by any means. This, my friend, is an abomination. Maybe the Rankin-Bass ROTK was bad, but give them credit: at least they took the time to ACTUALLY ANIMATE THE MOVIE, so at least it looked good on mute.
MasterofArda 7 months ago
@MasterofArda Bakshi had no choice BUT to use rotoscoping, the bugdet ran out and he had to fund the remaining scenes himself
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 4 months ago
@MasterofArda Lol in the books every character has like 4 names. Does that mean it fails at basic storytelling?
TheGojira84 6 months ago
@TheGojira84
That's an exaggeration. Besides, the book actually explained that Strider was simply a pseudonym for Aragorn, and it doesn't take a genius to tell that "Mithrandir" is an elvish name for Gandalf. But "Saruman" and "Aruman"? Was Aruman in the books? Is it elvish for something? Just...why?
MasterofArda 6 months ago
@MasterofArda
The excutive Powers That Be wanted Ralph Bakshi to change Saruman's name to Aruman, because they felt that "Saruman" and "Sauron" sounded too similar and they didn't want viewers to get confused. They eventually changed their minds and most of the dialogue that used the name "Aruman" was re-recorded, but they didn't get it all. So it's just an error.
zvermilyer3 5 months ago
I would expect this version to be preferred by hipsters
Nauticus89 1 year ago 2
I had this as a kid, I noticed jackson flat out copied parts of this. Don't try telling me because its from the same book...The bit with "proud feet" and some other shit i can't remember, flat out copying.
RasAlGhul4000 1 year ago
is it true bakshi only made the fellowship and the two towers due to budget problems?
courtney359 1 year ago
@courtney359 Yup. And the Return of the King was done by the guys who did the Animated Hobbit musical. As much as I like the Hobbit movie, the style really doesn't work with the much darker LOTR series.
GLaDOS209 1 year ago
This was a great animated movie in its time, no matter what the critics said (then in the 70's). Despite the many flaws that could be found in it, it had many incredible appealing traits. It had a dark streak to it, quite a unique style of its own, a dramatic flair, some very attractive and mysterious bakcground paintings, none of the syrop found in many disney comparable films. The negative comments said by some young kids here (and some not so young) are understandable, but out of context.
centralamerican1 1 year ago
this would make no sence if is not because we saw Jackson's
kurono1999 1 year ago
Call me ignorant, I ha no idea this existed until today, and I've seen the movies several times and read at least 1.5 of the books. (Guilty, I skipped a lot of it... it was a long time ago.)
Iisankun 1 year ago
i like how mysterious sauron is in this version:) when i as a kid and first saw this one i was dienig to see how sauron looked like:D so when the jacksson movies came out i was like "omg" when they just showed sauron right at the beginning^^
00Kuja00 1 year ago
this is pretty damn similar to peter jacksons beginning.
watsons08 1 year ago
Is the narrator Alec Guinness?
SGRollingStone 1 year ago
@SGRollingStone no its ben kenobi xD
lavidaesrock 1 year ago
Im looking for Fantasy Films but cant find it
PrinceThrons 1 year ago
OMG! SO CLAASSIC
cihan2704 1 year ago
LOTR the best movie ever.
MrJoaolayne 1 year ago
Good movie,great blend of live and animated.Always a backbone for later movies.First came the books,then this and most recent movies.All were masterpieces for their time and should be admired :-)
Jacinto93077 1 year ago
I admit this thing is hilarious, but it WAS the movie that introduced me to the book. So, Ralph Bakshi...thanks...
ambereyes93 1 year ago
did they ever make a second part to this cartoon? i own it at home and i wanna see another one. so did they or no? someone please give me an answer lol
sorlikow 1 year ago
@sorlikow the return of the king follow up was made by someone else and...well see it for yourself its on youtube but beware it might ruin your childhood dreams...like it did to me a few months ago :(
Vinchtef 1 year ago
Sauron TAUGHT the Elven smiths the craft of Ring-making, btw...
Payneisgod1 1 year ago
I got this movie and the Hobbit Cartoon for Christmas when I was 5 (: haha this movie scared me sooo much
starsoverthere 1 year ago
it's a good beginning for a 70's movie...off course he coldn't make a movie like peter jackson did,because there were no big resources (as special effects or computer graphic)
jamesDYL 1 year ago
This silhouette/rotoscope animation would be great to see for a number of different stories. It may not have been the best fit for LOTR, but its too visually interesting to not use for something.
MerelyAFan 1 year ago
EPIC?
MikroStormer 1 year ago
I think we can all agree that Bass-Rankin should rot in hell for what they did to the Hobbit and The Return of the King.....They are more evil than Sauron...
Zatoichi444 1 year ago
I used to hate this version when I was a kid....but now that I watch it again....I think they did a damn good job......considering......
Zatoichi444 1 year ago
This movie was awesome...Just a little...Weird.
hullo514 1 year ago
I used to watch this many times as a kid myself! What I remember quite distinctly is the image of Prince Isildur when he picks up the ring and holds it in his hand as you can see in the film.....I get the sense that looking at his figure (perhaps silhouette-like) and his posture he seems fairly gentle and sensitive which is how I feel myself for the most part.
music4now 1 year ago
Look out Sauron it's Robbin Hood!
melkor834 1 year ago
OMG I love this version used to watch it so much as a kid - the soundtrack is so good, and the unique animation! so so good its a real shame they never did the 2nd half
aggerskrtel 1 year ago 14
Admittedly, Jackson's movies flesh out the characters, story and epicness of the LOTR books more completely. However, his version is heavily influenced by Baski's excellent animation, eg check out the scene were the hobbits meet the black rider on the road to Bree. Also, the technique of animating on to negatives for the black riders, orks and some of the warriors at Helm's Deep is truly masterful. A painstaking job, but a worthy one.
TheMatgee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've seen the animation several times and loved it. As good as Peter Jackson's LOTR, I can't sit through any of them without nodding off. I much prefer the animation.
BlakeVII 1 year ago
I've seen the animation several times and loved it. As good as Peter Jackson's LOTR, I can't sit through any of them without nodding off. I much prefer the animation.
BlakeVII 1 year ago
It has been pointed out before but there´s a small error here in the story.
It says that the Dark Lord Sauron learned how to make the master ring after the other rings where forged.
That´s not entirely true. In the book it is clearly stated that it was Sauron in the disguise of Annatar, who thought the great elven smith Celebrimbor how to make the rings of power not the other way around.
Erikjust 1 year ago
This was the best we could hope for in '78. There is no comparison between Bakshi's and Jackon's versions. They're jus different. And, as has been commented already, Bakshi was on a very limited budget and did an admirable job with what he had.
RBNightlinger 1 year ago
lol this is funny. thank god for peter jackson.
melikemusicalot 1 year ago
Imagine if the whole movie was done like this. (Red backround with shadow silluettes, lol)
FangoChris 1 year ago
too bad it isn't a real movie, more like an animation film, but still quite good for 1978
zwaardjuh 1 year ago
i just bought this yesterday on dvd. i love it!
ChargersrBA 1 year ago
Didn't Nightwish use a few lines from this intro for one of their songs?
johanneszero1990 1 year ago
@johanneszero1990 yep it was elvenpath
thesingingteranodon1 1 year ago
While I favor Peter Jackson on most parts I have to admit that ork battle chant at helm's deep was awesome as hell.
ReasonAndPurpose 1 year ago
One Ring to rule them all! Gandalf's voice is the shit.
tylenol2k7 1 year ago
Funny ...... this is the only version I truly enjoyed ! The epic film I cannot seem to sit through !!!!
frankg3rd 1 year ago
keep playing 1:27 over and over, im trying to figure out what just happend lol
bilbo looks like a jawa.
AndyCarnage 1 year ago
Halow jackson didnt copy jack squat, read the books
Hornyflipper 1 year ago
1978 this movie was okay, yet now that we have CG this movie is as falt as one of my girlfriends.
DocMEDICK 1 year ago
I can't wait for this to come out on blu-ray! April 6th!!!
theemceemurdah 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This movie is sweet i loved the ending i just watched and downloaded it at
watchenmovies (.) com
Laceygurlx44 1 year ago
middle earth A.K.A EUROPE
isnt that cool
CAZPERsayz 1 year ago
It's good for its time. Of course it doesn't topple the mass budget Peter Jackson movies, but it's still very well made.
Kingofeurope 1 year ago 2
@Kingofeurope Snow White was made in the 30's. This in the 70's. Snow white is a billion times better than this piece of crap
JJ26woop 11 months ago
This was my introduction to the saga. It gave my mind a good base before reading the books. And until the recent movies came out, it was unsurpassed. It was the first time I had seen rotoscoping.
I kind of feel sorry for small chidren today, as they are going to have the whole story on any format, and production designers dictating the limits to young imaginations.
But aren't the peter Jackson movies fantastic?
Effin great!!!!
Mickylove76 2 years ago
Jackson initially denied ever seeing this film when in fact it was his first introduction to the story, which he later admitted. Looking at this, I'm struck how similar this prologue is to the Jackson version. There is no prologue in the book.
vivalapsych 2 years ago
absolutely... but jackson copied so many things. the winged balrog, the scene under the root, the ring wraiths stabbing the beds etc.
Holowachuk 1 year ago
Even though there is no prologue in the book, there has to be one so even a newbe att TLOTR understands the story, every moviefan, or director would know that. This is nothing but a coinsidens, to make the whole story make sence (you don't need a prologue in a book, since you always have the chance to turn back the pages).
TengvallCompany 1 year ago
Anybody notice how "jewish" this film is? Like it's director. All the characters look like the hebrews from all those old religious movies and sound like them too.
RedDragonJack 2 years ago
wow... red dragon jack seems to be an expert in such things.
Holowachuk 1 year ago
This sucks ass. Its only a little bit good because its hillarious how shitty and dumb it is.
afropipp 2 years ago
i saw this in the pics,its corny but sheer class,i think its better than jacksons
bigme1975 2 years ago
the only problem about the movie is when it was in dark scenes with dark orcs it was kind of hard to tell what was what but it was still pretty good
spanishmafia94 2 years ago
why do none of them have faces like people in disney films do?
jamesg24 2 years ago
why it is red?
pipin2003 2 years ago
i thought i recognized it
especially when the male-voice started but
what does he say?
lotten16 2 years ago
This is so much better than Peter Jacksons.. He should go back into making movies like Bad Taste.
ThisNickWasntTaken 2 years ago
/highfive
Peter Jackson has sold out the saga to the masses... :S
ColdSpring1984 2 years ago
@ThisNickWasntTaken
you have got to be kidding. this absolutely blows compared to the new movies
heymanniceshot1 2 years ago
Who the hell gave this less than 5 * s?
MomosReel 2 years ago 2
@gorbbe1 -- yeah, bad compared to the PJ trilogy, which was almost as genius as the books themselves. but back when i was a kid, this was the shit. and one of only a sliver of movies that depicted the realm of fantasy.
UklaTheMokk 2 years ago 3
Viewing this video is clear where Peter Jackson was inspired to do the intro of his trilogy, but still the PJ version is infinitely better (and fuller) than Bakshi.
PrettyEowyn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is so bad!
gorbbe1 2 years ago
jejejeje, si. Pero la introdución es muy buena, a mi juicio.
morgulddt 2 years ago
yes the pj films are good. but if your of a certain age and you have an imagination this cartoon was captivating. children should see things like this where the production perfect thamks to a shed load of money. it has its own charm.
memoryman1984 2 years ago
this animated version was classic magical filmmaking and was a great family movie, even if most of it was very intense and dark. the live-action films will always be the best!!!!
SpiderBoy992 2 years ago
@ExilLarkdanx xD lol.. but realy like him...
UltimateRaven41 2 years ago
just like dracula 1992 ,filmede in romania
georgel19841 2 years ago
peter j sux ralph b cool thats all i have to say
toby1526 2 years ago
WHAT! rubbish... If you like this intro, u should check out the intro for the lord of the rings fan film, "halifirien". It's like this... only better...
LiveNewArts 2 years ago
Muy buena pelicula, la introduccion es bastante clara.
morgulddt 2 years ago
i cant help but feel without this movie jackson's films would be missing something
pacman5698 2 years ago
all you people should grow up. Ralph Bakshi made this lotr animation awsome and Peter Jackson made epic movies about it as well. and at the end of the day they both made great lotr movies so stop arguing about who had the better movies.
jaidalord 2 years ago 55
Jacksons is better, there is no argument, however that is not to say Bakshi should be insulted. He was creative, and did a fine job with the resources he had.
amyinarms 2 years ago 68
@amyinarms fuck off, jackon's version has become dated the year after it was released. plus it has no atmosphere at all. Cheesy, cheesy and more cheesy. the bakshi version has a much darker atmosphere and tone and even the music is better not the cliche heroic fanfares or random celtic chick-moaning. At least the bakshi version did not stoop to lame as fuck comic relief moments or pointless, charismaf-free elves.
dontleademsomuch 1 year ago
@dontleademsomuch Opinions are opinions, now shut the fuck up.
Listenkids 1 year ago
From the director of the crappy movie Cool World
Malcham7 2 years ago
Hey it could have been better but the PJ ran out of money to continue
Hunte9753 2 years ago
hahahahahhahahhahaha
ematj 2 years ago
To me this is the best LOTR movie
pacman5698 2 years ago 2
Looks completely pants!
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
Any serious critic who put aside nostalgia would agree that Jackson's version was highly superior to Bakshi's. This one sounds like a Disney movie and is laughable at many parts.
fellointer 2 years ago 3
i ' adore ' this classic adaptation from 1978 , watched it every other day on vhs. original and classic.
has its palce in the golden archives.
a totally different era back then.
cujo9 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
lotten16 2 years ago
I think this version is much more true to the book and its lore than Jakcson's version is. A pity they were on such a thin budget and in such a hurry that they couldn't grant the film more time, and a sequel.
MrRoekkum 2 years ago 3
Yeah that would have been great, i wish that Bakshi could have made the return of the king.
But instead they let some other make it and belive me that movie was really bad
Kobbern 2 years ago
I respectfully disagree, I tend to view Jackson's verison to be truer to the books, even though I found this prologue to be interesting nonetheless. But it is somewhat inaccurate to the books:
1. According to the books and Jackson, Sauron was the one who tricked the Elves into creating the rings while he created the One Ring.
2. The Last Alliance of Men and Elves were not losing as presented, instead they had Sauron under siege for 7 years before coming down from the Black Tower.
Pegas105 2 years ago
No. The Elven rings were the only ones that were not influenced by Sauron, because he had nothing to do with them.
ragnatoad 2 years ago
That's true, but everything else is essentally correct.
Pegas105 2 years ago
This version is so much more dark and scary than the new ones 2001-2003. fuck em
kaizaluktarbaiZ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck you!,
This version is utter shit!,
Jackson's trilogy is the greatest cinematic accomplishment ever!
Asshole!
23en73 2 years ago
I dont know about you assface, but i got pretty fucking tired of watching that little faggot elija wood just run around and look like a devistated junkie for 3 whole movies.
Go eat a rotten dick and die mingebag
kaizaluktarbaiZ 2 years ago
Rofl, neither are perfect adaptations, but at least Bakshi tried. Jackson is just an arrogant prick who sucked the Academies dick to get a bunch of Oscars and riddled what was original the greatest literary trilogy of all time with cinematic cliches. "OH LOL, SO LETS HAVE FRODO AND GOLLUM HAVE AN EPIC BATTLE OVER THE CRACK OF DOOM! OH, AND IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE FRODO HANGING BY ONE HAND OVER THE LAVA! 12 YEAR OLDS LOVE THAT!" Visually they were impressive, and Ian McKellen was (cont.)
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
brilliant, but apart from that Jacksons films were a mess to anyone that's ever seen any more than 3 films and has an IQ higher than that of a brick.
Fucking awful.
Once more, not saying that this was particularly good- but at least it had something going for it- at least Backshi wasn't an arrogant PRICK about it.
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
you don't get laid much? do you?, fucking looser!
23en73 2 years ago
That's pretty irrelevant, isn't it? I can't picture someone asking someone how much they get laid over youtube getting laid all that much, either.
No one on youtube gives a fuck about your social life, and I didn't ask. My qualm is with the dipshits going on about how much they love Peter Jackson's cock. Not with how much poon you get- fucking idiot.
I think you belong on Twitter or Myspace. Those are good fag sites involving people that love gossiping on the internet.
EatMyPwn 2 years ago
It was well made,althought it was done in 1978
Feanorth 2 years ago
I Think Peter Jackson watched this version and , ...Da da daaaaa Remade the it ? He cut the same parts out of the fellowship..
He did how ever add a bunch of stuff in the two towers that was nt in the Tolkin's story. The return of the king... That whole pathes of the dead part , The Oath breakers ..was DUMB
godffery 2 years ago
tall elf kings? wtf?!
ActMole 2 years ago 2
HAHAHAHHA this is hilarious, sauron is forging his ring with a freacking hammer hahahahhahaha XDXDXDXD
awtystanislas 2 years ago 4
This opening seems much more epic than Jackson's version.
Hewylewis 2 years ago
it seems more eerie, but Jackson's opening was pretty boss. Cate Blanchetts voice was beautiful, and overpowering. Also, the first war of the ring depicted in his opening was by far the best of the battle scenes in all three movies.
BlueBlood1886 2 years ago 3
Actually, Sauron was the one who taught the Elvin smiths how to forge the nine rings for men; the seven rings for dwarfs; and the three rings for the tall elves. Sauron then forged the one-ring to "in the darkness bind them." I have no idea why they changed this part of the story. It wouldn't have taken that much longer to explain the back story properly. Oh well, edit-room cuts are often mysterious and rife with folly.
Frostybeek 2 years ago 3
lmao, who are you kidding talking like your some man of gondor "rife with folly" haha get over yourself :P
amness1a 2 years ago
I can't stand this movie. I saw this movie all the way through once but I can never watch it again. It gives me such a terrible headache. The Hobbit, I can deal with and Return of the King was just plain stupid.
Boogie1188 2 years ago
a classic!
Panchitofin 2 years ago
im just not feeling this sorry directors of 1978 -.-
Justinian43 2 years ago
Ah. How very nostalgic ^^ I still recall watching Bakshi's creations when I was a kid. The Lord of the Rings and The Wizards.
Okami501 2 years ago
I like Gollum's voice in this version better.
yakambition 2 years ago
Its interesting to see how much Peter Jackson borrowed from this adaptation
PeteJones100 2 years ago 3
you mean stole scene by scene at times...
vincent4500 2 years ago 2
It wasn't successful box office wise. Thats why it wasn't continued. I love it though. Could not watch it enough when I was a kid.
cfx5000 2 years ago
Interesting work, but the characters design and some animations are too ridiculous. Aragorn looks like a motherfucking Cherokee.
khyronbradford 3 years ago
He may. But he is ugly and with that comes Frodos wonderful statement in the Dancing Pony at Bree, where he says that if Strider was an agent of Mordor, the would have taken care to send someone less ungainly...
koookeee 2 years ago
First time i ever heard of LOTR when i was a kid! What a great movie!
joeylodes 3 years ago
I can stand people who knock this version without all the cgi I still think this is better than Jacksons. Bakashi really captured the fantasy and drkrness of the novel!
nukem11 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you high?
ElBombastico883 3 years ago
Are you dick?
nukem11 3 years ago 4
There is nothing dark about this movie at all. Gollum looks like a messed up frog and the fights are crap
gurulord117 2 years ago
Gollum looks great in this movie, not like the 1980 version
bajskorvsissy 2 years ago 2
true, my bad i was thinking of the 1980 version
gurulord117 2 years ago
but this movie is still crap compared to peter jackson's version
gurulord117 2 years ago
Are you 10?
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
dude every one has their own opinion. I like this cartoon and i love the movies. So dont flame a guy just because he isn't the same opinion as you are.
MortosSoulStealer 3 years ago 8
how is this in any way better than jacksons!...indeed u must be high my friend
unlovedAvatar 3 years ago
Well i dont kiss jacksons overrated 300 million dollar cgi film im afraid, are leave that to some of you guys!
nukem11 3 years ago
Yeah, this movie look pretty bad even for Ralph Bakshi!
SolomonGrundy101 2 years ago
i agree mate,i went to see this in the cinema when i was only 6 or 7 and i still love it,but why did he never make the follow up was that never planned
bigme1975 3 years ago 3
I grew up with although Im not as old you I still love it.
I know its real shame he never completed it. I think it took allot out of him while making it so I guess he didnt want to touch it again. I would love to see him complete all he has left is the return of the king and it would complete his underrated version brilliantly.
nukem11 3 years ago