Lord of the Rings- Peter Jackson and Ralph Bakshi Mashup 1

[Johnlindsey289]

Bakshi's movie is fair but very inferior to Jackson's masterpieces.

[xIegionx]

Before making the film, Peter Jackson had to do a lot of research on LOTR. Reading the books, and even watching the films, both the animated hobbit film and return of the king. AND of course Bakshis. And if I recall, Jackson said he "Loved" bakshi's film, and believed it was something way ahead of it's time for a 70's animated film.

[tnb35]

both movies sucked

at list Ralph Bakshi's didn't look like xena the warrior princess meats world of Warcraft

[4thel0ve]

The timing & editing is amazing!

~*~*~

P.S. 12 people work for Ralph Bakshi -- or Peter Jackson. :p

[MandaloretheYoung]

I didn't think Bakshi's film was that bad. It had its flaws, but I didn't think it was as bad as some people say. But then again, that's all a matter of opinion.

[pickerman123]

I don't understand. Bashki's work was outstanding. EVen in this dubbing you've done the narrative works fine. Is there really a point to any of this? I don'tmean to sound rude, but you've created something that actually works fine. But to compare a limited budget BAshki had with an unlimited budget that jackson had is unfair from the get-go. Bashki's did an amazing job considering what he had to go through to make his version.

[kronicred]

Bakshi's work is so much better than P. Jackson's. Sooo much darker and true to the feeling of the books.

[Yuikey]

Peter did Bakshi really wrong. He did not give this guy enough credit if any at all and he should have. Peter Jackson's version was really the updated version of Bakshi's work. He took so many ideals from Bakshi it not even funny...

[FishfilmInc]

@Yuikey it was based off a book, so of course there will be things in both movies.....

[Yuikey]

@FishfilmInc I think everybody know that these movies was based on a book and we all know we are going to see the same things from both movies...but Peter Jackson took a lot ideas from Bakishi and put it in his film. Which was nothing wrong with that eveybody borrows and upgrades ideas,but in one interview, Peter Jackson denied even seeing Bakshi's film. Pretty much saying he did not borrow or was influenced by Bakishi, but anybody who seen both movies would know that was not true.

[Yuikey]

@FishfilmInc I think everybody know that these movies was based on a book and we all know we are going to see the same things from both movies...but Peter Jackson took a lot ideas from Bakishi and put it in his film. Which was nothing wrong with that eveybody borrows and upgrades ideas,but in one interview, Peter Jackson denied even seeing Bakshi's film. Pretty much saying he did not borrow or was influenced by Bakishi, but anybody who seen both movies would know that was not true.

[LordeSloth]

Hilarious how G asks for the ring, closes and seals it in an envelope before he throws it in the fire. Also the speed of G and B's junkie resolution was great. Great idea and execution.

[NaranjaMecanica7]

come on people, Bakshi's work is awesome, don't remember he made a movie only by drawings and it was during the 70'!!

I felt in love with the LOTR thanks to this movie!!!

[Mooseboy018]

@NaranjaMecanica7 Only drawings? You means besides all the orcs and the Rohirrim?

[Alastarsblade]

@NaranjaMecanica7, you mean using live-action actors and drawing shit over them, (rotoscoping)

[Alastarsblade]

@NaranjaMecanica7 , i mean i dont hate ralphs version, i just think jacksons is better

[Thin182]

I've read through most of the comments on here and there are a lot of people who make excuses for Bakshi's version with talk of how little time and and money he had in comparison to the live-action versions. But really the live-action films were quite low budget; each film had about $95million to spend. The first Iron Man film had $140million. The last Superman film had $200million. And if Bakshi didn't spend the time needed on the film, he shouldn't have made it. Better no film than a bad one.

[bobbylopez]

this just highlights how much jackson used the bakshi film as a starting off point -- as flawed as the bakshi opening is, jackson couldn't really find a different approach to get all that info across.

[M1n0r1ty]

hahah frodo's voice in his version is so weird :P

[microkilla420]

I dont know what im gonna say this But ive seen a movie tralier for the old version it looked pretty good but ive seen few of Bakshi's movies ive seen Heavy Traffic, Cool World and American Pop. And those movies are Freakin awsome i love how Ralph Bakshi make these movies so good I love them. ive seen LOTR 2 The Two Towers it's a very good movie tho. It's pretty much a good idea that I Watch old version of The Lord of the Rings.

[imperialarchives]

What people don't understand about the Jackson lifting from Bakshi is that angles and ideas that Bakshi brought in were what were taken. The Proudfeet comment from the beginning was something Bakshi added along with the Nazgul attacking the beds at the prancing pony. I wouldn't have such an issue with it if Jackson would have said originally they were homages, before he admitted to borrowing and being influenced, he denied even seeing Bakshi's film his film is how he found out about lotr

[elieri]

I'm pretty sure both of those things were in the books..

[microkilla420]

The New version of the Lord of the rings Is WAAAAAYYYYY Better then the Old Version (I havent seen the old version yet)

[dlud88]

yeah you gotta be retarded to say you dont like something then immediately say you havent seen it. Bakshi's LOTR is awesome.

[Dervish407]

I admit Peter Jackson wins in the area of producing a much better looking film, but Bakshi's version had much better voice actors and character interpretation with one or two exceptions. I do think Ian McKellen was a damn fine Gandalf, and Bakshi's Samwise was horrible. Bakshi's LOTR omitted a great deal of the story, but Jackson took much more creative license with the story. Bakshi's dialogue and voice actors mixed with Jackson's visuals and detail would have made a superb LOTR, imo.

[Khultan]

I actually have the same opinion about that, Dervish407, I do love nearly all of the characterization as conceived by Bakshi but for the Samwise Gamgee, THAT I thought is where he goofed tremendously.

[koookeee]

There can be little doubt that Jackson was influenced by Bakshis film. I always thought that Jacksons film, while a solid adaption of the book, fell short of the possibilities of our time, considering special effects and acting.

Bakshis version, although I abhorr the drawn characters, is visually much more challenging than Jacksons work. Take the Balrog: In Bakshis film, its a weird chimera with a lions head and butterfly wings! And Jackson? Just your typical Diablo 2 end boss.

[MasterofArda]

@koookeee

Wait a minute.....you actually took that bed slippered butterfly-winged freak seriously? you didn't crack up as soon as you saw it???!!!! Are you insane or just stupid?!!!!!!!!!

[hsbg]

you're full of shit dude, Ralph Bakshi is an artist, whenever you do something even close to what he did, then call it awful...

[Elyazateran]

hey! let's be fair. that technology used in the trilogy wasn't available in the. seventies so be nice.

[tluniverse]

The dubbing makes the Jackson's adaptation feel rushed or too fast-paced. However, Jackson's adaptation also appears more animated, despite the fact that it's live-action. This was actually kinda cool.

[VJWU]

You're an idiot for making fun of Bakshi version when it was him who originated the first picture and Jackson STOLE scenes directly from the movie shot per shot. Go google it and find out in interviews how pissed off Bakshi is over it.

[martinthegnome]

you'd think that since they're both creating films of the same book by tolkien that there would be a lot of similarities. the bakshi film could have been much better but like all animated films of the time it got screwed on budget. the jackson films are of a much higher production quality although i will say that the acting in both films is very good.

[starstarstar42]

I have no comments on the merits of the Jackson vs. the Bakshi versions, but I do have a comment on the poster's editing efforts...

Nicely done.

[buttondiet]

i loved the cartoon, a big part of my childhood, really stirred things in me xx

[clarkfk]

I find all these comments interesting, especially where the poster calls the bakshi version "hilariously awful" and jackson's version "magnificent." Considering that anyone who watches both versions will quickly see that they are pretty much the same film and jackson took many of his ideas from bakshi...

[martinthegnome]

yeah sure, jackson stole from bakshi...od did he just read the same book?

i'm getting a kick out of all these 'jackson ripped off bakshi comments. how can anyone think that when the source material is the same. kind of like saying valmont ripped off dangerous liaisons.

[raimat66]

Very nice to see that more people than I are so fanatic and crasy so they work with the two Lotr-productions in similar ways.

It's funny and exciting to watch your similar as well as your different soloutions of the mashup. And I asure you that I didn't know anything about your work before I had finiched my "fan's cut". (I've sent it as a Video respons)

Anyhow, thank you for your movie.

[00Totti00]

Anyone that prefers the Bakshi version must be as inbred as Sam is the the film. That is the only good part of it. His first appearance is comedy gold (although unintentional)

[00Totti00]

The Bakshi version is the worst film of all time, and the Jackson version the best/

[7111nailuj]

Ash nazg durbatuluk,

Ash nazg gimbatul,

Ash nazg thrakatuluk,

Ag burzum ishi krimpatul!

[Fantasmo77]

The Bakshi-movie is much better. It's a shame that it was no success.

[Quessir]

Yeah, watching badly rotoscoped actors prance around for far too long on their horses makes a "much better" film :P

[RoseMirror]

lol

[Borna909]

Bakshis Version was very good for that time.

Imagine PJ´s Trilogy without all the CGI and THEN compare.

[MasterofArda]

@Borna909

Hmm....interesting challege, Jackson's version without CGI. Well taking away CGI doesn't take away the better performances in Jackson's movies, or the prosthetics, or the sets, or quite a few of the fight scenes. As a matter of fact, compared to most films (Avatar i'm looking at you) Jackson's LOTR really didn't use CGI much at all :P

[jjobie]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Mast3rFr3aky]

While I admire Bakshi for trying to stick to the books, the film itself has major flaws. Poor pacing(outside Moria to Lothlorien instantly?), bad pronunciation(Aruman? Mine-as Tirth?), idiotic character design(lol Boromir's a Viking and the Balrog? No comment), and the sheer randomness of seeing Roto-scoped orcs hopping about. Although Jackson made different choices for his films, they are more enjoyable for me to watch. I'm not saying Bakshi is a bad director, he just tried to do too much.

[ThePlanetJupiter]

The new version has some poor pacing issues as well. The passage of time between Gandalf leaving the ring with Frodo and returning to warn him... Really, I'm not sure how that aspect can be resolved in film. It doesn't translate well. The same explanation applies to many of the Bakshi pacing issues, particularly when you consider the limited time space Bakshi was working with.

But yes, some of the design is off. But then some of it seems to have served as inspiration of the new version.

[Mast3rFr3aky]

Well it is really hard to put the book to film and do it justice.

[7111nailuj]

I totally agree.  READ TOLKIEN'S BOOKS! There lies the TRUE vision!

[brabon]

bakshi's version was not awful...it was experimental...and really made enough money for the full trilogy to be made...why it was not, i will never understand

[Moseslawgiver]

@brabon I like the way it seems to connect the story of the Ring's forging all the way through to Bilbo getting it better than Jackson and co. did. It also strangely seems that Bakshi and co. fit much more content into their prolog and in quicker time than Jackson, and it does not seem choppy one bit, it all flows together. It's odd that Jackson's prolog is so much longer and yet lacks proper pacing.

[Mooseboy018]

@brabon And what better story to use as an experiment than the Lord of the Rings?

[aquelescaraaaaaaaaaa]

@brabon Bakshi used the money he gained from LOTR and Wizards to finance his later movies such as Hey good looking and Coney island.

[chabelardo]

Hilariously awful? Man, shut the fuck up.

[jjobie]

It may not have been hilariously awful, but it was not a great film. I remember seeing it in the movies as a kid, and then again on VHS later when I was a bit older and my friends and I (LOTR fans all) could tell even then that it wasn't as good as it could have been. Better than the Rankin-Bass cartoons, sure...but not a masterpiece by any means.

[LaukkuTheGreit]

Cool video. Pity that you left some lines out. Good job fixing the ring markings thing ;)

[riodragon]

Personally, I loved the Bakshi version over the Peter Jackson version. The only reason I'd watch the Peter Jackson versions is to get the whole story...

[AngelofMusic2006]

I seriously do not understand how anyone could dislike Jackson's films. Page-by-page accuracy aside (which is impossible, by the way), whether you've read the books five million times, or don't even know what a hobbit is, there's no denying it's unbelievably beautiful cinematography. That's why I can't stand those God-awful Tolkien "purists", who will call the films a disgrace, simply because a line that was spoken by Aragorn in the book, is spoken by Elrond in the films, or so-on.

[riodragon]

That has absolutely nothing to do with it... I do like the Peter Jackson versions as well, the Bakshi version just has a considerable more style and effort from all involved put into it... Mostly, I prefer the movie from a craftsmanship standpoint... Yeah, Peter Jackson's movies had a lot of effort taken as well, but by multiple teams on specific tasks, rather than one team having to do the ENTIRE movie (and, essentially, the trilogy, as was originally planned). I'm no purist. I'm an artist.

[ThePlanetJupiter]

Neither version is perfect. Both have their strengths.

[ThePlanetJupiter]

The Bakshi version is better in some ways and fails in others. Treebeard? Billy Bardy? But the Bakshi music is superior, as is much of the charcterization. Frodos solo flight to Rivendell alone shows where Jackson went wrong.

[MythicDude]

..... are you kidding? I liked how Frodo was helped by Arwen because she was amazing and it made the story better.

And the music of Jackson's adaptation did Middle Earth much more justice.

[ThePlanetJupiter]

In the book and the Bakshi adaptation, that was one of the few defining moments of Frodo's strength. The other being at Weathertop where he puts on the ring to fight the wraiths. Not that the scenes in the film were bad, but that the content as it was originally envisioned served as defining moments for a key character, and nothing came up to properly replace this.

[MythicDude]

ah. I see what u mean. Still I think using Arwen was a good a idea to stomp about all the things people thouhgt about Tolkein being sexist

[Caesarfilms]

nice job on defending a good movie.

[AngelofMusic2006]

How could you possibly call this music superior to Howard Shore's MASTERPIECE?

[ThePlanetJupiter]

Fairly easily. The music in the new films leans a bit to heavily on melancholy. Not that it's all bad by far. And not that all the music from the Bakshi version was superior. Leonard Rosenman was well known through 50+ years composing for his talent, and the score on the Bakshi version reflects this.

[dennissta]

jackson's version is so dehumanised, it seems like a computer game. if there was any art in it, it was the art of those who designed the costumes. everything else had as much artistic value as a computer game. concerning bakshi, though the film is terribly flawed on many counts, at least it has artistic value. it may be using rotoscoped people in ridiculous dresses posing as orcs, and a lion in slippers posing as a balrog, but at least it is not an empty experience like jackson's films.

[leightopipe]

fuck off fuck off fuck off please please!!!!

[AngelofMusic2006]

What an incredibly huge slap in the face to those hundreds of people who worked on those films. Every single person involved in that production was an artist. And if you're going to call it dehumanized, I'd begin to doubt whether you have a heart, because one of the most beautiful aspects of the whole trilogy is how emotionally charged it is. Wow. I don't even know you, but I'm furious at you for what I would call a pretty damn inaccurate and insulting remark.

[Poejoy]

Actually I liked both films. There are elements I preferred in each. One thing I did like in the older version was the music, particularly for the opening. What's kind of funny is how well hackary64 did at synching up the dialogue!

[cutekittygirl]

It's not awful actually.

[mangamadde]

Nice mixing, too bad the Bakshi version sucks...

I mean, did they even explain what a hobbit was? I would've been confused to the pants by this crap! 5/5

[Caesarfilms]

Unless you watch the extended Fellowship... Jackson never explains what a hobbit was, besides that deals more with The Hobbit than it does Lord of the Rings.

[mangamadde]

Didn't say I liked the Jackson version either y'know ;P

[Webins]

Excellent work It must've taken time to get them synched up.

But where is part 2?

[HermanTheSorcerer]

...hiraliously awful.... screw you, it's from the late 70s, remember this

[wape1]

They did truly great films then too, so the Bakshi version isn't somehow above criticism because it was made in the late 70's.

[toreswe]

Veeery well made indeed! A cake for you.

[raresaturn]

Hilariously awful my arse!  Bakshi is great!

[goblinko]

Jackson's movies were fun to watch in the theatre, but they look really lame, the colors are all super trendy, it's shot like a soap opera... etc. Bakshi's version is way better.

[Caesarfilms]

Exactly

[AngelofMusic2006]

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Tareltonlives]

LOL

Hilarious! More please!

[Holowachuk]

i am one of those who like bakshi's movie better. and aarondire bear is absolutely right: Jackson based his movie on Bakshi's version. Just watch the beginning. Jackson tried to make it look different but in the end... well this video is one proof.

[Torrontegui]

So what? Jackson's better!

[Romeomoon]

It seems people are comparing apples to oranges here. Jackson has done the best with live action, and Bakshi did far better with his rotoscoped animated version than Rankin Bass's Return of the King (although RB's animated version of the Hobbit is a classic).

[sethisawesome]

by the way, bakshi's saruman had a RED robe and sounded prepubescent. How's THAT for changing the story?

[elbethere]

actualy (and sorry if I sound technicle) tolkien describs saruman as being of many colors, and no longer having white.

[sethisawesome]

yeah, I remember that part, I think Tolkien says something like it shimmers as if it were many colored, and I think that Gandalf describes the robe as actually changing from one color to the next. It has been a few years since I read FOTR so don't quote me on that one, though.

[sethisawesome]

I really don't understand the negative comments towards Peter Jackson here. Bakshi doesn't even come close to his skill level. Not by a long shot. And for all of you who are commending hackary64 for dissing PJ's version with this vid, did you even read the description?

[elDamahj]

Excellent work. Peter Jackson's version just isn't the story that Tolkien wrote. This little video is better than PJ's work by a long shot. For all the strange animation of Bakshi's work, it is far more faithful to the original story. The other great producton is the BBC radio version.

[ZuryTalbourne]

Yeah, you can't go wrong with Gandalf the Blue, Aruman the Red, and Mutant Retarded Sam. :p

Seriously, though, this video shows how badly off the Bakshi film's pacing is. Every scene just rockets by, in this mad dash to get to the next scene and cram as many plot points in as possible. Jackson gave the story room and time to breathe.

[elDamahj]

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But I stick by my own; the story of Tolkien's was followed by Bakshi, whereas Jackson chose to change it completely (eg. an indifferent Butterbur,the argument at the council of Elrond, Lurtz, Haldir at Helm's Deep, a violent Gandalf, the clown Gimli, a weak-willed Frodo, Faramir the ignoble,and so on). The book IS full of numerous plot points (that's the beauty of it). Jackson's is a warped version made visually spectacular but simple.

[sethisawesome]

Those are all important plot points, and it is a shame to see some of them changed the way they were, but the fact is that PJ did the best job possible of adapting a pretty unadaptable into 3 films. And I think that even though the movie is pretty dumbed down for the masses, the love of the story is definitely apparent and what made LOTR so great in the first place is still there.

[sethisawesome]

lol so true.

[jjobie]

Amen. Thank Christ somebody gets it.

[gilesgoatboy]

Well done!

[darthxfactor]

That was pretty cool...yo.

[Asamof]

XD I used to have the ralph bakshi version. Me and my friends use to watch it for humour

[bloodsling]

Bakshi wanted to make a trilogy ie PJ,but alas ran out of money so what we got is what we get...real shame too,watched that flick on VHS till my tape died lol..can u get the Bakshi version on dvd?

[luke101978]

bakshi's version is my favorite

i wish they finished it.

no CGI.

[aarondirebear]

of COURSE they match up...Jackson's LOTR was BASED on Bakshi's movie, not on the books.

[cybeavertoo]

masterly illustration of the lack of good storytelling at PJ's team. All the sometimes marvelous imagery can't hide the awful fact of them not having a clue how to tell a story well. Its just a lot of moving images glued together. And then all those silly made-ups. Urgh!

How different with Bakshi. His adaptation is flawless in building tension and drama. Leaving things that r unsaid, unseen. Using the power of shadows. And b aware telling another man's story, not ur own.

10-0 for bakshi

[Bluezainbad]

good on ya, too true, PJ's was big and grand, but completely lacked subtlety. especially the music, the score in bakshi's left a lot to imagination and melded all kinds of feelings, compare that to PJ' LOTR score, which basically tells you how to feel with an opera voice.

[Mooseboy018]

Nice work fixing the part where they didn't even bother to check for the ring inscription... : )

[Mooseboy018]

This is great.

[youngOhm]

Nice work. Very interesting to see, it changes the whole view on the film.

I like both films.

@thedj4remix: Yes, I think also, that Jackson took many ideas from Bakshi: The scene, when Gollum loses the ring; the scene, when the hobbits hide under this tree because of the black rider; Boromir seems like a viking how in Bakshis film and so on...

[drcoxcentral]

You Know I did something like this long ago, only I try making Jackson's trilogy as Bakshi's film by editing down scenes. It was interesting, I even put the smeagol/deagol story into the prologue of the first film, but I scrapped it unfortunately. Let me say, I LOOOOVEE this idea, I hope to see more!

[thorin42]

This "hilariously awful" animated adaption is closer to the magnificent works of Tolkien, than the perhaps excellent film of Jackson's that has far too much artistic license taken. Elves at Helms Deep? Come on.

[Mooseboy018]

Bakshi's is closer almost in a bad way...they just took random scenes and peices of dialogue and put them together in a way that makes no sense at all. They made it in a way that shows that they had not appreciation or understanding of the Tolkien's story. Jackson may have had more "big" changes, but most of them enhance the story (in my opinion) and make it work better as a movie.

[aarondirebear]

Closer/More accurate is NEVER in a bad way.

Your opinion is wrong, the changes made the story suck.

[Thin182]

So there are elves at Helm's Deep? At least the live action films had decent acting and a sense of pace and tension. Apart from the slightly confusing (geographically) Helm's Deep battle in Bakshi's version I found I didn't really get into the film.

Jackson made the stories whereas Bakshi was trying to make the books. With the money he had, and the short running time, he shouldn't have. The film doesn't, and couldn't, get the wonder, the scope and the depth of the books.

[uncleosbert]

right... you just said john hurt wasn't a decent actor, and peter s. beagle has no sense of pace or tension. jackson's version is fine, but i find it kind of soulless personally. even weirder though, is the way the internet has made us all believe we're critics. if peter jackson's version replaces bakshi's, we'll still be losing something valuable, even if you can't see it; the scope and depth and wonder that comes from other minds and other times.

[Thin182]

Amd you're saying John Hurt was the only person in Bakshi's version. I was talking about the film as a whole. And yes the animated film has poor pacing. It rushes through major pieces of dialogue like the characters were talking about the weather. Boromir's death is two seconds long and he barely has more than a few lines in the film making the death meaningless for the most part. Yes there's something valuable to be gotten from this version, but as a whole the film doesn't stand up.

[uncleosbert]

no, i gave you an example of how empty your review was. are you really saying you wish they'd slowed down conversations about the weather? this is by no means the best movie ever, but people are unfair because the story is deemed "important". are you upset jackson cut out tom bombadil too?

i like bakshi's version because it captures the dark and creeping sensibility of tolkien's work. why not just enjoy it (or don't) and comment on the mashup, instead of pretending to be a critic? weird.

[Thin182]

You didn't really, you merely mentioned the name of a great actor in the film. And you're missing the point of what I was saying; the dialogue in Bakshi's version was poorly written and made to seem inconsequential. And of course the story is important! Bakshi tried to make the books into the film and that's what he did wrong, he couldn't pull it off; no-one could! The book's called unfilmable for a reason. The book's are too deep and too big to film dramatically.

[Thin182]

The story is not. Jackson filmed to story and had to leave stuff out, Tom Bombadil didn't matter to the story and had to be left out for pacing. If you like Bakshi, I don't care. I was only responding to what someone who said that the elves at Helm's Deep in the live action film made the film crap.

[uncleosbert]

i couldn't disagree more. i'm not trying to make you like this movie, but i am trying to get you to understand why your review is dismissive of talent. i am glad that bakshi tried, even if you can't see the value of his effort. it's the puritanical nature of your comments that upset me. i like the dialogue. i think the dialogue in jackson's is poorly written. "not the beard!" please!!

[ThePlanetJupiter]

Did you actually see the Bakshi version? Boromirs death scene lasted was quite long.

[Thin182]

Yeah I did, though it was about four or five years ago. I remember Boromir's death as being mostly off-screen and over with quite quickly. It cuts to Boromir; he's up against a tree filled with arrows. Then the Uruks run off with Merry and Pippin. Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn show up, Boromir says a few things and promptly kicks the bucket. It's all over in about two minutes. That's how I remember it happening but if I have forgotten something let me know.

[ThePlanetJupiter]

You have forgotten the majority of it. He rushs to save Merry and Pippin, is shot. He pulls the arrows out, keeps fighting, shot again, pulls arrows out, even as he falls, still sends the hesitant orcs back with a roar. Merry and Pippin try to defend him, fail. Aragorn finds him much later, clinging to life so he can tell what happened to the hobbits. Long scene, and one of the better moments of the Bakshi version.

[ThePlanetJupiter]

You're right though. Some of it does have poor pacing.

[togio100]

the nimated version was okay. But is a far far cry from being Peter Jackson's adaptation

[thedj4remix]

look i love both films. You have to take in to account that Bakshi made his film in the late 70's and that it was the first successful interpretation of LOTR. He was a genius animator. By the way, many ideas for Jackson's version, he took from Bakshi.

[desotowright]

Amen, and the music at the beginning is always great to listen to.

[jimiousjimothy]

Nice Work