I've seen them both. The animated one is alright, but the Jackson one wins by HUNDREDS of miles. Each character is better fleshed-out (I dunno what he's talking about when he says that Boromir is just sort of there -- his struggle is one of the most emotional, heartbreakingly intense I've ever seen), the story draws you in more, the visuals are FANTASTIC, and as a bonus, the score is the best I've ever heard. The winner is obvious.
7:15 well yeah you moron do a little research before you run your mouth. The whole point of the Jackson Aragorn is that once he learned his heritage he was consistently overwhelmed by this sense of failure. Isildur had failed and he was not sure if he had that same weakness that allowed Isildur to save the Ring. That was one of the greatest triumphs of Aragorn, he overcame his own shortcomings and was able to lead Gondor and Rohan to victory agaisnt Sauron.
I didn't mind Jackson's Frodo being weak in the 2nd and 3rd ones because the ring was weighing down on him much more, which made Sam's character shine even more as his comrade on the battlefield. While in the 1st one, Frodo didnt really have any kind of courage compared to Bakshi's one.
Why even bother doing this? The Baskshi movie was a total cluster fuck of animation and was emotionally flat. You never really felt any sense of urgency or drama, even when characters lives were in danger. The only thing I liked about it was its dark atmosphere but even then I am pretty sure there was meant to be some variation in tone in the books, and this movie just didn’t have it. It found dark and stuck with dark. Even the animated movies with the annoying lute player are better than this.
Who else would love to see an Old vs New on The Hobbit?
Comparing the 1977 Rankin-Bass movie to the 2012 Peter Jackson movie, though it's obvious on who's gonna win... But I would still love to see Doug compare, promote the Rankin-Bass one, like how he did with the Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings.
In response to how Jacksons Frodo lets Arwen take command and face the Black Riders...
Yeah. That's my biggest gripe with that movie. Jackson inflated Arwen to main character status for no good reason while putting his foot down on Frodos character squishing him to a completely helpless weakling. Grr...
yeah frodo wasnt used to all this but so was merry and pippin and they fucking went to the blach gates to fight an army that was like 50 times bigger than theres in short frodo is a moany bitch merry and pippin kick serious ass
Jackson's Aragorn didn't have inner strength? What? What about the scene where he resists the ring when Frodo asks him if he would destroy it? What about the scene where he rallies King Theoden and his riders for one more final charge before the Uruks kill them? I could go on.
Frodo may have been portrayed as stronger in the books and animated Lord of the Rings, but I do believe Elijah Wood's portrayal was more realistic. He had the fate of the world depending entirely on him. How would you feel in his shoes... or feet? As for Aragorn, the reason why Viggo Mortensen played him not so much like a king was because his version did not want to be king at first, due to lack of faith in his heritage, which added a lot more character development in my opinion.
I like that no matter what Doug says, I always get where he's coming from. Why? Because he EXPLAINS his reasoning. Not enough critics do that well. They just say everything like it's objective and don't go into enough detail as to why they think the way they do. He's one of those guys I feel like I could have an actual discussion with about movies.
I remember seeing the Bakshi verion when I was a kid and being totally turned off by how all the characters looked and rotoscoping (I think it was) where they animated over live actors for the action shots becasue the diffrence in animation between it and the standard animation was like having live actors interacting with animated characters. Of course before that I had really just seen the Rank and Bass "Hobbit" and "Return of the King". :)
You people who call the Elijah Wood Frodo a wimp are clearly not understanding something. Frodo was entirely out of his element by being out of the shire, thrust into peril and battle, and having a Dark ring of power around his neck possessing him. Peter Jackson's Frodo was much more realistic and believable. And it's entirely understandable why his journey to Mordor was so taxing on him.
personally i think the peter jackson version of Frodo Baggins is a lot more realistic. i mean, yes, he may seem too vulnerable. but if you were being chased around by cloaked monsters with a ring of absolute evil possessing you, YOU WOULD BE THAT VULNERABLE TOO! especially if before than youve never been in any sort of battle!
@1994moviebuff i wouldnt call Sam BA, sure he saves Frodo a whole bunch of the time but he is generally just as scared of everything around him as Frodo is and he still has a lot of things that trouble his mind. He's not like Gimli saying "Bring em on! I'll take em all down!"
The old Frodo was better than the new, cause the new Frodo is just a wimpy emo, but the Sam is better cause he has heart, a spine, and WAY more character than the old will ever have. New Gandalf is better cause he has more wisdom while keeping his head straight the old just makes him a little unlikeable.
At least of the animation, perhaps that comment was too cruel. Here's a better one, the new looks like it has a little too much drama and they all work a little too hard at it.
The animated version looks something the makers TMNT and Captain Planet ate some then shitted their shit and then wiped their asses with and finally puke on it.
That image with all the Nazgul standing with the little Frodo Nazgul suddenly made them into Organization XIII (tall guys in black with a little guy in black).
I never really understood why he would associate the intimidating thing with being kingly, I mean you don't want to live in fear underneath a leader. That's what a tyrant is.
Aragorn in the Jackson version was not all that charismatic, sure, but the men wanted to follow him because they had heard of the things he had done and wanted to follow him because they looked up to him. Sure, we never saw him do anything kingly, but the men sure saw him as kingly.
With Frodo being a bit of a coward, I think it worked better because it helped show that he was clearly out of his element and was in over his head. For that reason, he was a bit more realistic and I think that he was a better Frodo
The reason why they didn't play the kingly side of Aragon in the jackson films was because they were going for the idea that he was someone who was trying to escape his past with a bloodline who eventually fell to the power and corruption of the ring and thus was afraid that he too would fall to the same fate. hence why they never showed him doing anything or even looking kingly until the very end because he was trying to escape his destiny.
I remember when the first LotR movie came out, I thought and still think it was really good even though it lacks alot of the details from the books. Not long after I tried to see the animated version, and seriously, it had its charm, but I got bored for some reasons. Maybe I would have different perspective on it now, but back then it was just plain silly and dull at some parts.
Unfortunetly, if anyone saw the Jackson movies first, they're automatically going to hate or disfavor the Bakshi version right away. I love the Bakshi movie, btw, it's the kind of movie you watch at ten o'clock at night.
I gotta be honest, I'll go with Jackson in every category. The kind of effort that went into the trilogy (just watch all the making of documentaries, it's mind-blowing how passionate everyone involved with the project was) has never been seen before. From the cinematography to the miniatures (bigatures), from the divine musical score to the ground-breaking performance of Andy Serkis, The Lord Of The Rings films are a monumental achievement of film.
Samwise Gamgee in the Jackson version is my favorite character, and when I saw Sam in the Bakshi version I pretty much cried and laughed at the same time.
NC's right about Gollum. When watching Jackson's TLotR for the first time, I couldn't decide whether I wanted to strangle the wretch or give the little dude a hug.
In the Jackson version the reason there is no kingly aspect to Aragorn is in my opinion because as he explained in fellowship he doesn't want to be a king because he is afraid he will be like his ancestor.
Sam in the animated version actually made me turn off the film in disgust for a couple days. He was such an insult to Sam, who is one of my favourite characters. I also didn't like how the animated on did some my other favourite characters either. I must say I much prefer the Jackson one, especially with how it portrays Sam.
I'am really scared of Little sho of horros that it wants me to kill myself with fear but when i hear this motivational speech at 7:21 i just want to fight back FOR MIDDLE EARTH AND THE WORLD!!!!
I love how this shows how much of a fan of Jackson's version I am, because I would argue how much every aspect of it is better even though I know I know shit about it and I'm probably wrong
Now technically speaking, this is all opinion based. (beat) But I have an online show which automatically means that my opinion is better than yours. Na na na na na. LOL, that was funny Critic. I do remember the animated LOTR slightly, but it's a good thing I don't remember it so well. And it's Ralph Bakshi, not Bashki
@dustnut1 *laughs histericaly* in WHICH WAY does the Shore score beats the Rosenman score? but really, it did reflected Middle-earth pretty well, the suspense moments, that ''prophecy'' music, but really, the Rosenman score is SO MUCH superior in many ways, seriously, how can anyone hate those battle themes? the orcs chanting? the intro music? the theme credits? FREAKING 0:44 ?
@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa Wow. Your SO convicing with your argument skills. lol. "is SO MUCH superior in many ways!" yep. Your point seems so clear now. It is SO MUCH superior. No, but all joking aside, that isn't even correct english.
I prefered the Jackson one not because of his personality, but because they went with the idea that he honestly didn't think himself to be a king and never really wanting anything to do with his lineage, which is why he didn't look all that kingly in the jackson films.
I'm gonna have to disagree with the critic on this one and say Jackson for Aragon.
He wouldn't become one of the Nazgul. He would become LIKE the Nazgul. He would be a soulless, wandering, immortal "zombie," per se. He wouldn't become one of them though. The ringwraiths are strictly the "nine mortal men doomed to die" as told in the prophecy.
Aragorn is vastly superior in the Bakshi movie. His Gandalf is great as a frustrated wizard realizing he's surrounded by idiots. Too bad Bakshi never got to finish the story.
The point of Frodo wasn't to be a perfect hero... he had weak points too, and portraying him as a guy who could scare away ringwraiths is just silly. The point of the Nazgul is that they inspire in even the bravest people.
I dont understand why the animated one gets more negative? I thought its a bit better then the first film in the franchise but thats not saying much since that doesn't have two more sequels like the live action.
I tried reading LOTR book 1, and for some reason just didn't like it, the movies are epic, but by the time that I got to chapter 8 I was absolutely sick of it. The only part where I really felt like I wanted to read more and not that I had to read more was during Gandalf's conversation with Frodo in Chapter 2.
And wtf were those things that kidnapped Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry that Tom saved them from?????
@ekbowler The books were written as one book. The ENTIRE first book was the rising action of the plot, the second was the climax, and the third was the second climax and the conclusion.
@dragonson04 when I say "The Books," I am referring to the collection as a whole, meaning FoTR, TT, and RoTK. And as for the first book, it seems that they spend more time getting ready for supper than actually doing stuff, that, among other things, drives me crazy
@marmik961 I personally believe that books like LOTR led the way for Harry Potter. I love both of them though, just LOTR seems more powerful to me than Harry Potter. And I think that when people think of Harry Potter they don't think "oh that one book" it's "oh that one movie" with LOTR it's "OMG THAT BOOK" (I may be wrong but that's how've I've seen it).
I personally can't stand the scene where whats-her-face saves Frodo. First of all, that's MY hobbit and secondly, he would've never gotten stabbed if he had run away like the others and not stupidly fallen backwards! However, I think the scene was done to scare people into being more afraid of the wraiths. I love Sam and seeing that animated one breaks my heart.
@ravennrichards maybe when bakshi was going to make part two, he was going to make sam less retarded and more bad ass as the movie progresses, now that would be awesome.
The scene where Gollum is talking to himself in Two Towers and they are switching angles almost as if two people are conversing, that may be one of the most brilliant scenes to be in a movie in quite some time. That scene is really under appreciated in my opinion
When I saw Fellowship in the theater, I thought Merry and Pippin were going to be the equivalent of Jar Jar (though obviously less annoying). But they really stepped up in the following two movies and really earned their stripes I thought.
I've seen them both. The animated one is alright, but the Jackson one wins by HUNDREDS of miles. Each character is better fleshed-out (I dunno what he's talking about when he says that Boromir is just sort of there -- his struggle is one of the most emotional, heartbreakingly intense I've ever seen), the story draws you in more, the visuals are FANTASTIC, and as a bonus, the score is the best I've ever heard. The winner is obvious.
thatwhichisgiven 2 days ago
7:15 well yeah you moron do a little research before you run your mouth. The whole point of the Jackson Aragorn is that once he learned his heritage he was consistently overwhelmed by this sense of failure. Isildur had failed and he was not sure if he had that same weakness that allowed Isildur to save the Ring. That was one of the greatest triumphs of Aragorn, he overcame his own shortcomings and was able to lead Gondor and Rohan to victory agaisnt Sauron.
halofable574 2 days ago
I didn't mind Jackson's Frodo being weak in the 2nd and 3rd ones because the ring was weighing down on him much more, which made Sam's character shine even more as his comrade on the battlefield. While in the 1st one, Frodo didnt really have any kind of courage compared to Bakshi's one.
Purpleisawesome93 3 days ago
Why even bother doing this? The Baskshi movie was a total cluster fuck of animation and was emotionally flat. You never really felt any sense of urgency or drama, even when characters lives were in danger. The only thing I liked about it was its dark atmosphere but even then I am pretty sure there was meant to be some variation in tone in the books, and this movie just didn’t have it. It found dark and stuck with dark. Even the animated movies with the annoying lute player are better than this.
Antichrist2000 4 days ago
You can tell the Critic is grasping at straws, trying to do whatever he can to make this Vs. actually...competitive.
defender2222 5 days ago
3:35
The listener of the Dark Brotherhood of my Oblivion game...
BabyPaulaPolestar 5 days ago
I still prefer Peter Jackson's Aragorn, he's still one of the most awesome characters ever in a movie.
PerHummer 5 days ago
Who else would love to see an Old vs New on The Hobbit?
Comparing the 1977 Rankin-Bass movie to the 2012 Peter Jackson movie, though it's obvious on who's gonna win... But I would still love to see Doug compare, promote the Rankin-Bass one, like how he did with the Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings.
MountainFox51 1 week ago 2
@TomboTime He leaves Frodo all his food and water and carries him accross mordore. That's not Gimli, but it ain't no Frodo either
1994moviebuff 1 week ago
In response to how Jacksons Frodo lets Arwen take command and face the Black Riders...
Yeah. That's my biggest gripe with that movie. Jackson inflated Arwen to main character status for no good reason while putting his foot down on Frodos character squishing him to a completely helpless weakling. Grr...
Xackadee 1 week ago
yeah frodo wasnt used to all this but so was merry and pippin and they fucking went to the blach gates to fight an army that was like 50 times bigger than theres in short frodo is a moany bitch merry and pippin kick serious ass
GordonMc100 1 week ago
The twins in the Jackson version reminds me of Fred and George from Harry Potter ^^ or the other way around, I saw Harry Potter first
MetteLentz 2 weeks ago
Jackson's Aragorn didn't have inner strength? What? What about the scene where he resists the ring when Frodo asks him if he would destroy it? What about the scene where he rallies King Theoden and his riders for one more final charge before the Uruks kill them? I could go on.
jfitz1431 2 weeks ago
8:46 gollum losing weight! thats the last thing he needs to do haha, he needs to put on as much weight as he can
jhibbitt1 2 weeks ago
Frodo may have been portrayed as stronger in the books and animated Lord of the Rings, but I do believe Elijah Wood's portrayal was more realistic. He had the fate of the world depending entirely on him. How would you feel in his shoes... or feet? As for Aragorn, the reason why Viggo Mortensen played him not so much like a king was because his version did not want to be king at first, due to lack of faith in his heritage, which added a lot more character development in my opinion.
darthgoku135 2 weeks ago 2
LOL parts:
1:10
3:23
4:44
5:50
7:34
Eye2EyeIIIV 3 weeks ago 3
8:39 Hahahahaha
FenrirLaVey666 3 weeks ago
I never get tired of watching this review. It brings up quite a few good points, even when there are some parts we can argue about.
Am I the only one who thinks Doug could go into voice acting?
TheStarryArcher1213 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why would he ruin their image? there are dwarves in their ranks, so why not a hobbit?
Spiritstar0 4 weeks ago
why would he ruin their image? there are dwarves in their ranks, so why not a hobbit?
Spiritstar0 4 weeks ago
Well critic, I didn't know you spoke Hacotate. 6:01
MechanizeDragon 4 weeks ago
how about doing an Old vs New of Salems Lot?
innerguardianXIII 4 weeks ago
I have this movie (ITS ASSSSS!)
Thegearsdude1235 1 month ago
lol he did an epic gollum
UnwantedStudios3 1 month ago
if you think Gandalf is over acting in the Animated lord of the rings watch the first two minutes of The Hobbit animated lol
superjumper19 1 month ago
Aragorn looks ridiculous in the animated version...
nahor88 1 month ago
lol i got a giant poster of bakshis version right in front of me.
eveplayer12 1 month ago
I like that no matter what Doug says, I always get where he's coming from. Why? Because he EXPLAINS his reasoning. Not enough critics do that well. They just say everything like it's objective and don't go into enough detail as to why they think the way they do. He's one of those guys I feel like I could have an actual discussion with about movies.
GoldenFlither15 1 month ago
i always have chills on my back when i hear music from Peter Jackson version
colzimo 1 month ago
I remember seeing the Bakshi verion when I was a kid and being totally turned off by how all the characters looked and rotoscoping (I think it was) where they animated over live actors for the action shots becasue the diffrence in animation between it and the standard animation was like having live actors interacting with animated characters. Of course before that I had really just seen the Rank and Bass "Hobbit" and "Return of the King". :)
LibraGamesUnlimited 1 month ago
I think he should do an Old VS. New on The Thing
ZaneyBills 1 month ago
You know what... PETER JACKSON'S VERSION IS DA BOMB!!!
moonpaw221 1 month ago
i demand that someone caption that pic of obama with "you mad bro?"
GuitarrAssassin 1 month ago
"OH MR. FRODO..!" I can't help but laugh how stupid Sam's character acts from the Bakshi version lol
GeonTheDayDreamer 1 month ago
@beatleman98
That would be awesome.
linearman0245 1 month ago
You people who call the Elijah Wood Frodo a wimp are clearly not understanding something. Frodo was entirely out of his element by being out of the shire, thrust into peril and battle, and having a Dark ring of power around his neck possessing him. Peter Jackson's Frodo was much more realistic and believable. And it's entirely understandable why his journey to Mordor was so taxing on him.
Bunnyhop777 1 month ago 36
Elijah Wood. ALL. THE WAY!
Bunnyhop777 1 month ago
No. Elijah Wood is the most awesome hobbit. Get out if here.
hiccuprocks101 1 month ago
I didn't know there were lord of the ring animation in the 70s
ameeer3 1 month ago
8:39 Best part
Gibsonsg527 1 month ago
pretty good gollum impression :D
Minyadagniriel 1 month ago
why does he keep saying "ralph bashkee"? its "bakshi"
katzenjammer1979 1 month ago
XD 6:00 lol
klman4 1 month ago
Oh, Nostalgia Critic's Gollum-Smeagol impression just cracks me up. XD
TheStarryArcher1213 1 month ago
HEY! WATCH WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT MA MAN KEANU, CRITIC!
mikayla690 1 month ago
@mikayla690 KEANU REEVES IS A ROBOT!!!! AND NOT A COOL ONE EITHER!
How you like that?
Lightspeeds 1 month ago
Frodo drops the sword because jacksons black riders are scary looking, the cartoons black riders are barely walking retards
30seconds2slipknot 1 month ago
didn't most of the points go to the bahkshi film? why did jackon's win? just because there's a 3rd movie and more filler???
dante224real1 1 month ago in playlist nostalgia critic: the playlist
@dante224real1 Did you watch part 2?
Heroshii15 1 month ago
@KingdomHeartsBrawler Oh my god you're right, that means he didn't turn out good ruling gondor
kevinsharpe97 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the cartoon hobbit was puuuuuure genius. i hope next year when that comes out he has an old vs new of that
ZACKnirvana 1 month ago
Comment removed
ZACKnirvana 1 month ago
personally i think the peter jackson version of Frodo Baggins is a lot more realistic. i mean, yes, he may seem too vulnerable. but if you were being chased around by cloaked monsters with a ring of absolute evil possessing you, YOU WOULD BE THAT VULNERABLE TOO! especially if before than youve never been in any sort of battle!
TomboTime 1 month ago 76
@TomboTime yeah, but they made Sam a complete and utter badass. explain THAT
1994moviebuff 1 week ago
@1994moviebuff i wouldnt call Sam BA, sure he saves Frodo a whole bunch of the time but he is generally just as scared of everything around him as Frodo is and he still has a lot of things that trouble his mind. He's not like Gimli saying "Bring em on! I'll take em all down!"
TomboTime 1 week ago
Hey Critic, review Old Vs. New: Star Trek! :D
ShadowParanoya 1 month ago
8:39-8:53 thats acually a good impression
maggiemae252 2 months ago
You suck. Hey, you suck LOL
Rack44hoonmaster 2 months ago
The old Frodo was better than the new, cause the new Frodo is just a wimpy emo, but the Sam is better cause he has heart, a spine, and WAY more character than the old will ever have. New Gandalf is better cause he has more wisdom while keeping his head straight the old just makes him a little unlikeable.
Rack44hoonmaster 2 months ago
At least of the animation, perhaps that comment was too cruel. Here's a better one, the new looks like it has a little too much drama and they all work a little too hard at it.
Rack44hoonmaster 2 months ago
The animated version looks something the makers TMNT and Captain Planet ate some then shitted their shit and then wiped their asses with and finally puke on it.
Rack44hoonmaster 2 months ago
lol at the obama part
skillcosby88 2 months ago
He should've mentioned how Pippin sang in Return of the King!
evilmonkey3656 2 months ago
Wait... John Hurt was Aragorn? That means that Aragorn eventually becomes the Horned King! D8
KingdomHeartsBrawler 2 months ago
That image with all the Nazgul standing with the little Frodo Nazgul suddenly made them into Organization XIII (tall guys in black with a little guy in black).
KingdomHeartsBrawler 2 months ago
The Jackson gollem reminds me of the mudokins from Oddworld
HRTheTrister 2 months ago
Why does the Bakshi Aragorn look like Anton Chigurh?
trainchugger53 2 months ago
Good Lord! What did they do to you Sam!
odonnell1218 2 months ago
u r hilarious! lol
PerfectRemedy171 2 months ago
Am I the only one with a raging hard on for the hobbit movie
That was my favourite child hood book so they better do it justice
sonisphere098 2 months ago
I never really understood why he would associate the intimidating thing with being kingly, I mean you don't want to live in fear underneath a leader. That's what a tyrant is.
Nuggetol 2 months ago
Aragorn in the Jackson version was not all that charismatic, sure, but the men wanted to follow him because they had heard of the things he had done and wanted to follow him because they looked up to him. Sure, we never saw him do anything kingly, but the men sure saw him as kingly.
40Pacino 2 months ago
With Frodo being a bit of a coward, I think it worked better because it helped show that he was clearly out of his element and was in over his head. For that reason, he was a bit more realistic and I think that he was a better Frodo
40Pacino 2 months ago
It was sooooo hard to watch the cartoon, I didn't even finish it..... But I think I need to or my life won't be complete.
LnzMQ 2 months ago
When I saw the title I thought " oh gosh eww."
LnzMQ 2 months ago
The bakshi sam sounds like the long haired guy from Monty Python and the holy grail
arodbrooks 2 months ago
The reason why they didn't play the kingly side of Aragon in the jackson films was because they were going for the idea that he was someone who was trying to escape his past with a bloodline who eventually fell to the power and corruption of the ring and thus was afraid that he too would fall to the same fate. hence why they never showed him doing anything or even looking kingly until the very end because he was trying to escape his destiny.
Just saying Doug.
GojyotheFeared 2 months ago
Argument for bashki= john hurt. That is all
culchiecorner 2 months ago
Let's hope he does an Old vs New "The Hobbit" when the time comes.
xDangerouslyAwkwardx 2 months ago
What kind of pistol is the one you use when you're pissed off NC
arodbrooks 2 months ago
I remember when the first LotR movie came out, I thought and still think it was really good even though it lacks alot of the details from the books. Not long after I tried to see the animated version, and seriously, it had its charm, but I got bored for some reasons. Maybe I would have different perspective on it now, but back then it was just plain silly and dull at some parts.
GeneralErlend 2 months ago
Unfortunetly, if anyone saw the Jackson movies first, they're automatically going to hate or disfavor the Bakshi version right away. I love the Bakshi movie, btw, it's the kind of movie you watch at ten o'clock at night.
humanconvertile 2 months ago
@humanconvertile true. everyone shud watch the Bakshi version first, then watch the Jackson ones.
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de NostalgiaCriticFan4
I gotta be honest, I'll go with Jackson in every category. The kind of effort that went into the trilogy (just watch all the making of documentaries, it's mind-blowing how passionate everyone involved with the project was) has never been seen before. From the cinematography to the miniatures (bigatures), from the divine musical score to the ground-breaking performance of Andy Serkis, The Lord Of The Rings films are a monumental achievement of film.
ErnilEnNaur 2 months ago
@beatleman98
If he DID, it'd be Scarface the movie vs. Scarface the game. Unless you're talking about the old black and white film with Al Capone.
blkknightrutter 2 months ago
Thumbs up if you think Nostalgia critic should do an Old vs New of The 300 Spartans and 300.
Djang0ilBastardo 3 months ago 8
you call yourself a critic? lol
kurvatakco 3 months ago
omg the animation is so good they dont make em like this anymore....:(
MrPodaky 3 months ago
I'd prefer the jackson version because it's better for the epic battle's,and epic soundtrack's I always love lotr
P.s. I'm a fan of lotr (just saying) :)
ltjerryl 3 months ago
Love the Gollum imitation! :D
AretsuChan 3 months ago 3
He should do an Old vs. New of SCARFACE!
beatleman98 3 months ago 40
@beatleman98
But the 80s Scarface is a actually good.
Nineteen1900Hundred 2 months ago
Samwise Gamgee in the Jackson version is my favorite character, and when I saw Sam in the Bakshi version I pretty much cried and laughed at the same time.
kittykat662 3 months ago 3
NC's right about Gollum. When watching Jackson's TLotR for the first time, I couldn't decide whether I wanted to strangle the wretch or give the little dude a hug.
xDangerouslyAwkwardx 3 months ago
In the Jackson version the reason there is no kingly aspect to Aragorn is in my opinion because as he explained in fellowship he doesn't want to be a king because he is afraid he will be like his ancestor.
Gamrking 3 months ago
Samwise (the jackson version) needs a whole movie of his own.
helljumpr5150 3 months ago
Sam in the animated version actually made me turn off the film in disgust for a couple days. He was such an insult to Sam, who is one of my favourite characters. I also didn't like how the animated on did some my other favourite characters either. I must say I much prefer the Jackson one, especially with how it portrays Sam.
ElfmaidOfMirkwood 3 months ago
3:33 - > 3:40
LOL
Ridellable 3 months ago
I'am really scared of Little sho of horros that it wants me to kill myself with fear but when i hear this motivational speech at 7:21 i just want to fight back FOR MIDDLE EARTH AND THE WORLD!!!!
flipcamgamer 3 months ago
he drops the sword 2:42
flipcamgamer 3 months ago
I love how this shows how much of a fan of Jackson's version I am, because I would argue how much every aspect of it is better even though I know I know shit about it and I'm probably wrong
Trollsnews 3 months ago
The Gollum Coca-Cola bit always makes me laugh! XD
TheWiseGuy784 3 months ago 2
@TheWiseGuy784 Me too. I was at the soda machine today serving both Diet and regular Coca-Cola, and I burst into laughter by thinking of that
Zuyuri 3 months ago
Now technically speaking, this is all opinion based. (beat) But I have an online show which automatically means that my opinion is better than yours. Na na na na na. LOL, that was funny Critic. I do remember the animated LOTR slightly, but it's a good thing I don't remember it so well. And it's Ralph Bakshi, not Bashki
TheMarylandDude 3 months ago
The cartoon scared me as a kid
0xLoveisWarx0 3 months ago
In the speech scene you missedthe dissepering horse
bioniclefan998 3 months ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The animated version should be stricken from human memory. The Peter Jackson version is WAY superior.
LilacElf8582 3 months ago
@LilacElf8582 youre just being ignorant. if it wasnt by the Bakshi film, we wouldnt got the BBC radio adaptation, and the Jackson films.
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago
I'm not too crazy about the art style of the animated version but the characters seem pretty cool
Sam: Oh hooraaaaayyyyyyy!
...most of them...
and the animation is kick ass!
PrisonerofReality 3 months ago
for me the most powerfull thing in the jackson version is the music
dustnut1 3 months ago 4
@dustnut1 *laughs histericaly* in WHICH WAY does the Shore score beats the Rosenman score? but really, it did reflected Middle-earth pretty well, the suspense moments, that ''prophecy'' music, but really, the Rosenman score is SO MUCH superior in many ways, seriously, how can anyone hate those battle themes? the orcs chanting? the intro music? the theme credits? FREAKING 0:44 ?
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago
@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa Wow. Your SO convicing with your argument skills. lol. "is SO MUCH superior in many ways!" yep. Your point seems so clear now. It is SO MUCH superior. No, but all joking aside, that isn't even correct english.
dustnut1 2 months ago
@dustnut1 sorry, i am really not all that good at english.
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago
i loved the Jackson Aragon, he was a genuinely honest and trustworthy person.
19Wylds95 3 months ago 51
@19Wylds95
I prefered the Jackson one not because of his personality, but because they went with the idea that he honestly didn't think himself to be a king and never really wanting anything to do with his lineage, which is why he didn't look all that kingly in the jackson films.
I'm gonna have to disagree with the critic on this one and say Jackson for Aragon.
GojyotheFeared 3 months ago 3
@19Wylds95 and animated aragorn is not? :3
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago
@19Wylds95 i loved Jackson Saruman why he is played by Christopher fucking Lee
Sweeneytodd498 1 month ago
HUDDUJAHAJ.HOUGHT....HOUIGHT
charmy97 3 months ago
He wouldn't become one of the Nazgul. He would become LIKE the Nazgul. He would be a soulless, wandering, immortal "zombie," per se. He wouldn't become one of them though. The ringwraiths are strictly the "nine mortal men doomed to die" as told in the prophecy.
Finstahy 3 months ago 3
im typing with gloves on twice my size
the3questionmarkguys 4 months ago
sam looks like a chicken nugget lmao :P
doom705 4 months ago
@.@
I0LOVE0AMY0ROSE 4 months ago
BA-JING!!! :D
UchuuKeijiRaidanjin 4 months ago
8:39 - 8:54 Critic's split coca cola addicted personality Smeargol/Golumn is one the funniest things ever
BarneystudiozFilmz 4 months ago 4
Animated Sam reminds me of Mr. Humpries
lasse4eva 4 months ago in playlist More videos from NostalgiaCriticFan4
@lasse4eva LOL from "Are you Being Served?"
Clubs4Metal 4 months ago
@Clubs4Metal
Of course.
lasse4eva 4 months ago
Boy, they seriously fucked Sam up.
damnhippie16 4 months ago
love critics impersonation of gollum
104msangel 4 months ago
"Oh I hate Mondays"
SidArthuraSutton 4 months ago
OMG i never new Hugo weaving was i lord of the rings he was a bloody great agent smith
sharkzown228 4 months ago 2
critic makes a good gollum
sonadowfangirl30869 4 months ago
Actually, Bakshi's Samwise is kind of closer to the way he was written in the books.
inamerica55585 4 months ago
Have you read the book? Frodo is supposed to be kind of a bitch.
tadeckert7 4 months ago
Aragorn is vastly superior in the Bakshi movie. His Gandalf is great as a frustrated wizard realizing he's surrounded by idiots. Too bad Bakshi never got to finish the story.
FoxPlant2006 4 months ago
NO!
WE LOVES THE CALORIES! WE LOVES ALL OF THEM!
lol
ColossusShade 4 months ago
The point of Frodo wasn't to be a perfect hero... he had weak points too, and portraying him as a guy who could scare away ringwraiths is just silly. The point of the Nazgul is that they inspire in even the bravest people.
tlm19670 4 months ago
I personally believe that the animated version of LotR should be stricken from human memory.
LilacElf8582 4 months ago
The animated Sam reminds me of Pops from Regular Show XD!
RobertsRollerCoaster 4 months ago
@RobertsRollerCoaster lol your right! XD
JadedTimberwolf 4 months ago
0:45 Can I just say that I LOVE THAT MOVIE THEME!
marmik961 4 months ago
@marmik961 me too. it's the main reason why i freaking love the bakshi movie.
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago
@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa Do you know where I can find it?
marmik961 2 months ago
@marmik961 /watch?v=H0DvOMdQFBE
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago
@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa No I mean where can I buy it? (But that's a good back up)
marmik961 2 months ago
@marmik961 i dont know...i think there is at amazon or ebay for the original LP
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 2 months ago
@aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa Thanks and it might interest you to know that someone upload it on youtube. (That and the Hobbit)
marmik961 2 months ago
I dont understand why the animated one gets more negative? I thought its a bit better then the first film in the franchise but thats not saying much since that doesn't have two more sequels like the live action.
pippo17173 4 months ago
smeagal: I think we wants diet coca cola. :)
gollumn: NO! we wants original coca cola classic! >:)
smeagal: But we have to watch our calories! were trying to lose weight!! :o
gollumn: NO! we loves the calories! we love ALL OF THEM!! >:D
smeagal: you suck! D:
gollumn: hey you suck! D:<
lol I love his impersonations!
gengermaster320 4 months ago
The animated movie was far closer to the original text than the live action movie which is why I prefer it.
Wiliraughshai 4 months ago
i still thought the new movie aragorn kicked ass :P
alexbc7493 4 months ago
I tried reading LOTR book 1, and for some reason just didn't like it, the movies are epic, but by the time that I got to chapter 8 I was absolutely sick of it. The only part where I really felt like I wanted to read more and not that I had to read more was during Gandalf's conversation with Frodo in Chapter 2.
And wtf were those things that kidnapped Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry that Tom saved them from?????
ekbowler 4 months ago
@ekbowler The books were written as one book. The ENTIRE first book was the rising action of the plot, the second was the climax, and the third was the second climax and the conclusion.
dragonson04 4 months ago
@dragonson04 when I say "The Books," I am referring to the collection as a whole, meaning FoTR, TT, and RoTK. And as for the first book, it seems that they spend more time getting ready for supper than actually doing stuff, that, among other things, drives me crazy
ekbowler 4 months ago
@ekbowler Yes, the collection as a whole was written as one book. But Tolkien parted it out for some reason
dragonson04 4 months ago
Movie Frodo blows, why can't he grow a pair, and act like his grand-dad?
PuddlesthePirate 4 months ago
animated Gandalf looks like Merlin...
PowPowRyan 4 months ago 48
@PowPowRyan And live action Gandalf looks like Dumbledore.
marmik961 3 months ago
@marmik961 so true...
PowPowRyan 3 months ago
@marmik961 Dumbledore looks like Gandalf.
MrSchmupps 3 months ago
@MrSchmupps And they both have a lot in common.
marmik961 3 months ago
Comment removed
FunsizedTaylor 3 months ago
@FunsizedTaylor Ah I see your point so what do you like better Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings?
marmik961 3 months ago
@marmik961 I personally believe that books like LOTR led the way for Harry Potter. I love both of them though, just LOTR seems more powerful to me than Harry Potter. And I think that when people think of Harry Potter they don't think "oh that one book" it's "oh that one movie" with LOTR it's "OMG THAT BOOK" (I may be wrong but that's how've I've seen it).
FunsizedTaylor 3 months ago
@FunsizedTaylor I think I like Lord of the Rings better too I'm going to be watching them again soon.
marmik961 3 months ago
I personally can't stand the scene where whats-her-face saves Frodo. First of all, that's MY hobbit and secondly, he would've never gotten stabbed if he had run away like the others and not stupidly fallen backwards! However, I think the scene was done to scare people into being more afraid of the wraiths. I love Sam and seeing that animated one breaks my heart.
ravennrichards 4 months ago
@ravennrichards maybe when bakshi was going to make part two, he was going to make sam less retarded and more bad ass as the movie progresses, now that would be awesome.
aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa 4 months ago
in the jackson version
HE JUST DROPS IT
Crazi4Budgies 4 months ago
The scene where Gollum is talking to himself in Two Towers and they are switching angles almost as if two people are conversing, that may be one of the most brilliant scenes to be in a movie in quite some time. That scene is really under appreciated in my opinion
40Pacino 4 months ago
When I saw Fellowship in the theater, I thought Merry and Pippin were going to be the equivalent of Jar Jar (though obviously less annoying). But they really stepped up in the following two movies and really earned their stripes I thought.
40Pacino 4 months ago
IDK... the nostalgia critic's impression of Gollum is pretty BAMF too....
XD
Cyrica01 5 months ago