Nicely done.

Yeah great review :lol:

Look I know no matter how lightly I step with this comment I am still going to get backlash from people who feel it is necessary to agree with Doug on every tiny detail. I love NC to death, but for the first time I can't deny that my own opinions differ greatly.

I won't sit here and nit-pick, but just throw a few of my major differences of ideas. I understand this review leveled the playing ground by keeping ROTK on the sideline, but still Aragorn shows as much kingly potential in PJ's version as possible without turning the film's focus completely on him. The thing is in the PJ films his leadership qualities are downplayed, and subtle to help keep Aragorn from looking like an arrogant dick. Which is much more the impression I got from the animated film.

Yes John Hurt is a legend, and can play a huge variety of characters. It wouldn't be fair to sell his take on Aragorn short, but due to the low budget of the animated film it is hard to take him seriously. In the 70's version Aragorn seems a bit like a tyrant demanding loyalty, where the modern Aragorn has more of a leadership aura which earns loyalty. I think the perfect example is at the battle of Helm's Deep where he convinces King Théoden to ride out face their enemies presumably to the death, and leave the safety of the barricaded area.

10 positive.
1 negative.

I'd say... you're not the only one. (I agree with you as well and was going silently insane at that part of the video.) Not that my opinion means anything. :unsure:

To Be Honest, I have always loved Peter Jackson `s approach to making LoTR. Though some people would call it 'loving the subject so much he would take it in his a**' (yathzee), it remains ever convincing, as he dedicates so much time to the build up of every scene and character. Even though Bashki did some nice things as well ... the fact his version was animated annoyed me to the highest degree.To me personally, real people are better at showing their emotions better than animations and a longer story is always better. As Jackson `s characters get more time to evolve, they also have more chances to endeer themselves to us.

The only sad thing was the fact that he did n´t have enough time to tell more of the story. Probably due to bugetary reasons. Kinda sad really, because if it was doable ... a BBC miniseries style of 12 episodes would do the 3 books more justice as he would have more time to add more weight to each scene as slowly and as precisely as he pleased.

Then, I would probably just die from watching the sheer awesome that would be .. my dream film O_o

while i agree that real people work very well here, I think in essence animation suits LOTR better because it's simply so far out. I think if Pixar made LoTR, it would be solid gold win XD

Completely agree (wow, late reply).

Aragorn's entire storyline is about how he is one of the Dunedain Rangers - He knows about his heritage but he doesn't feel he's up to the task. His entire character is built around *not* being a king untill the responsibility is thrust upon him, and i would say that the Jackson version is far superior.

Which is the one point on Aragorn's take the NC obviously didn't understand. Aragorn did NOT want to be king and didn't flaunt his heritage as the kings of the past had all succumbed to some form of greed, arrogence or power lust (as in the case of Isildore), that helped to bring their rule to ruin. Aragorn's character journey was not just to do his part to aide in the ring's destruction but accept his destiny to become the King and re-shape the kingdom of men for the better.

I mean, the Aragorn from the Animation was good, but I think I would follow him out of fear. The Aragorn played by Mortensen is, as you said, the kind of guy who emanates leadership.

Now I hadn't read the books before seeing the film so I wasn't aware of Frodo's characteristics.

In Jackson's version, Frodo starts out optimistic and cheerful. However, he's roped into a journey he wants no part of carrying the Ring of Power that has corrupted the souls of more powerful beings and if he screws up he'll have doomed Middle-Earth. Not only that he's chased by evil beings that want nothing more than to kill him. He's never seen such evil, he's in a drastically new environment, of course he's scared. If you lived in the peaceful shire all your life and suddenly your surrounded by such devils would you honestly fight? I know this Frodo is obviously less tougher, but this version focuses on the drastic change such an unwanted burden can have on even the most cheerful.

Bashki's Frodo, is slightly tougher as stated before, but he's far more annoying than Jackson's Frodo. Sure we were all in the theater rolling our eyes when Frodo acted weak, but Bashki's Frodo reminds me of Scrappy Doo. Y'know an annoying runt whose in WAAAY over their head with delusions that they'll defeat far greater opponents. Confidence is alright, but Bashki's Frodo just doesn't feel believable, like he's putting on an act. He's been stabbed by a *Google* Morgul-blade that's slowly poisoning him yet he's able to outride the Nazgul on horse. No, I'm just not buying that. He's been stabbed by a poisonous blade that's getting closer to his heart with each passing moment.

3:05 Yet he out rides the Nazgul, raises his cantaloupe colored DAGGER and squeaks, "By all the Shire, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" I'm sorry that's not intimidation, from the enemy's perspective that's annoying. He's trying to be tough, but it's not convincing. He bears the Ring of Power, where's the evidence he is changing and carrying a heavy burden? He just feels like a generic cocky adventure hero with an (EXTREMELY) annoying Sam to be a dumb sidekick.
Seriously, I wanted to take Bashki's Samwise behind a shed and put two bullets in his head, I hated his doughy stupidity.

*PHEW*

Yet its your opinion and I especially loved your take on Sauron and how the older version was more intimidating. 5 Stars.

Yeah, but in the books Frodo, who is all but unconscious, is loaded onto Glorfindel's horse and it's the *horse* who outruns the Nazgul. Frodo just comes out of his semi-conscious state at the end long enough to resist them one last time, but they were still gonna pwn his ass if the river hadn't swept them away.

But, see, as Gandalf tells him later in Rivendell, while hobbits may be tougher than humans and that probably helped slow the process, he thinks that the only reason Frodo actually managed to hold on long enough to reach help was because he resisted them to the last (and even then it was a direly near thing).

All of that is taken away when it's *Arwen* yelling at the Nazgul, while Frodo's just an unconscious lump.

And so far as his reaction to danger goes, don't forget that he takes after his mother's side of the family (along with his uncle Bilbo) who are outrageously adventureous for hobbits. I mean, his parents drowned in a boating accident, when most hobbits (with some notable exceptions, like those of Merry's family who live next to the river) regard them the same way as wild horses. Frodo *longs* for adventure, and at this point, doesn't actually know what the Black Riders are, just that they're bad guys who seem to want to kill them. He just has no idea of just how bad yet, nor exactly what would happen if they caught him.

So I myself find the Bakshi version more creditable, being closer to the book at it was, and the book more realistic for the reasons I've outlined here.

How awesome is it not that Anthony "C-3PO" Daniels is voicing Legolas? :P

Hello. I am Leg-o-Las! Human-Elven relations!

What about Legolas...?

LASTER! XD

Hey, Coldguy, you already pissed off the Harry Potter fans. Don't insult another movie based on a book. Save it for Twilight 2.

I guess we should conclude that coldguy dislikes movies based on books.

Hey great video, I never know of that animated one

Site Wide Nerd Rage Fueled Ranting War in 3...2...

Not site wide, but hey... close enough.

hey, if u dont like movie based off of books then why are you bothering with this you hate??? seriously... hypocritical asshole, sure u can comment on the video, its a free country, but you dont have to flame on it and piss of people who enjoy it, so just to the tgwtg community and stop it!! and yeah i agree with rebeltaxi, save it for something that deserves complaining about...

I never exactly liked them, but these movies are pretty cool.

Glad I stayed up for this :)

wooo!

Well done sir.

B) "Long time watcher, first time poster"

:0 "Epic video, I really enjoy these Old vs New ones."

good vid as always. well worth the wait.

i know! when i first saw he was doing this I watched both of them again so I can decide for myself. it's still a toss up though. I appreciate both just as much.

03:39 thats me at my last job. :s

Ah, so that's the animated Lord of the RIngs movie. Haven't seen it myself, but I can see why you thought the Jackson films were better over all.

Interesting how Frodo's character is closer to the original books in the animated film rather than Jackson ones. I began reading the original books (I only have Return of the King left to read), and I was surprised on how much Frodo was changed.

Oh and the part where you're doing Smeagol and Gollum arguing over whether "they're" going to have diet coke or regular coke nearly had me on the floor laughing.

Excellent job, Critic!

Brilliant

wooo also 1st time poster!!! cant believe im posting early, in any case... keep them ace vids coming!!!

lol 1: 06 great one NC. I personally didn't like the animated lord of the ring movie (while i liked the hobbit one). I think the live action movies are alot better.

Good review Doug
as always :lol:

Another great video NC.

Very good review :D - To bad the animated film sucked...

Wow. I was actually expecting you to bash the Bakshi version from beginning to end like everyone else...

Jackson version wins in an overall comparison, but people like to turn a blind eye to the fact that Bakshi did a handful of things better, and that Jackson has admitted to lifting a good amount of his ideas directly from Bakshi.

And THANK YOU for pointing out that Bakshi's villains are far more intimidating.

Edit: Little tidbit I manage to dig up today: Bakshi's film was actually a box office success. 30.5 million on a budget of 4 million(remember, 1970s). The second was never made because of all the meddling he had to put up with from the studio and his producers, none of whom had any respect for the books.

I saw Bashki's film in the theater when it came out. I agree with you that his version of the villains are, for the most part, more intimidating with one big exception: The Balrog at the bridge of Kazadum. Bashki's version does look evil and menacing, but Jackson's is bad-assed lethal and terrifying. When Gandalf stands up to it is one of cinema's great on the edge of your seat moments. I actually was disappointed that Bashki didn't get a chance to finish the series and do Return of The King. Oh well....I am gratified that Peter Jackson did his films with obvious passion and respect for the source material. I'm also glad I saw both versions on the big screen. Peace.

I always knew you were brilliant, Doug, but your unashamed needling of President Obama in the middle of your review, elevates my respect for you about a thousand times. I pray that the current administration's attempts to dismantle the United States Constitution fail miserably. If anything he does censors your website, I would weep for the loss of American freedom and the daily laughs I enjoy from you, and your very talented companions on TGWTG.com. Keep up the great work.-America needs you far more than they need the Government. Peace.

Pfft!
Have you ever lived in a social democracy?
I didnt think soo!
But let me tell you....its pretty damn good
except maybe for all the immigration from third world countries.
Not that I have anything against immigrants as people but they tend to make a mess.
And your talk of "American freedom" is utterly pointless since I have about the same freedom as you(except I can walk about everywhere without getting shot by some frickin hillbilly).
And if anything we censor less.

"except maybe for all the immigration from third world countries.
Not that I have anything against immigrants as people but they tend to make a mess."

Seriously? Are you just trolling, honey?

First off, your sentence is self defeating: You claim to have nothing against immigrants...but yet you treat them as a a social ill and claiming "they make a mess". Nice attempt to hide your bigotry.

Secondly, those immigrants you so despise? It is upon their backs and by their sweat that your economy survives and that your little bourgeois candy-ass existence is made possible. Yet your governments step on them and discard them at will. Your insensitivity and ignorance is baffling.



"(except I can walk about everywhere without getting shot by some frickin hillbilly)."

Same here...except we don't have worry about getting curb stomped, stabbed, or set on fire by the Neo-Nazis, Radical Anarchists, or various political extremists/ Ethnocentrists which you lot seem to have in spades. Right back at ya.

"And if anything we censor less."

That's a bald face lie. The second a drop of blood is spilled, a public figure threatens to sue or boycott, or some is worried about feelings being hurt, then the hammer comes down on your end faster than ours.

As much as I don't agree with much of it's ideas, I have to recommend Blond's "Red Tory" as it does explore the nature of censorship in England and connects it to censorship throughout the continent and other nations.

I mean seriously do you folks live in a bubble!
You seem to think that america is politically at the forefront of the whole civilized world.

"Ohh a progressive slightly left wing politician is in office!
Will this mean a new soviet!?"

Uhh....yeah have you ever heard of that strange mythical continent to the east called "Europe"?

Because from where I come from Obama isnt really that big of a deal.

"Slightly left-wing?" Really? SLIGHTLY!?

The fact that the guy ran from the center but then proceeded to govern from the far left, shutting out the conservative wing of the government, should show that he's anything BUT "slightly" left-wing...

Ignorant liberal.

Hey! We're (I'm a Lib myself) not all out of our gourds, pal!

Adrasl is just a troll.

Uhm dude, just because he made big joke on President Obama doesn't mean he's against him =/. Alot of people joked about Obama's presidency including his reliance on the teleprompter, and his stimulus bill, but that doesn't mean we're against him; it just means we see him as any normal president who is doing his job to make sure America runs smoothly and makes the countrya world leader and a well liked one.

No offense, but that is bit reduntant to say that; considering that he's just doing his job to make America a better place for everyone, while some of you guys who's political beliefs are the complete opposite of his beliefs make claims his actions are destroying America. That isn't political bravery, that's political paranoia, and it's very common for people who are deeply involved in politics, whether they're politician voters who are against someone and claims such radical things but don't have concrete proof to back it up.

My political beliefs aren't the complete opposite, I'm a center-right brand of Conservative.

But even I can see that massive spending on an astronomical scale will only serve to completely and utterly destroy this country's economy.

Yeah, Bakshi's versions are WAY more intimidating.

The Black Cheerleaders of Moria are DEFINITELY better than the undead wraths of Moria.

The Dark Lord Who Says Ni is WAY more awesome than the powerhouse armor-clad warrior of the Jackson version.

Better yet, there is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING that can stand up to the robe-clad, lion-head wearing Balrog with butterfly wings and carpet slippers...

You're right, the Bakshi version's cheap-ass villains were SO MUCH MORE FUCKIN' AWESOME than the well-crafted ones of Jackson...

/sarcasm

New all the way!

I enjoy these old vs new videos a lot, thanks.

Yep, I Jackson worked best.

Look again, four digits per hand.

[quote=Animikean]NC, I hate to mention it, but on the title card you've got 4 digits on your right hand but 5 digits on the left.[/quote]There's 4 digits on the left as well.

Maybe goullum bit it off!
He did that to Frodo if you didn't watch the movies.

Wonderful compare and contrast, as always.

Really takes me back. The cartoon films were pretty ok ... some of their animation and "action scenes" don't look like they withstood the test of time, but that can be overlooked every once in a while.

It was no suprise that Jackson won but was a suprise was that the other one got 2 points.
Jackson's LOTR is one of the best movies of all time and will forever be up there with Star Wars etc. The Baski film is forgotten for a reason.

Never saw the animated version.. And i will never see it :D :evil:

haha Love your Golum impression xD
Nice review

The ending was hilarious.
I agree with NC's view completely.
Man I feel old for watching both the animated and the new one.

Oh by the way: Am I the only one that loved the "where there's a whip" song?

I adored that song as a child, and would sing it to my family. To this day, my mother can sing it as a duel with me.

haha, i was wondering if you were going to fully review the animated 'return of the king'. thank you for sparing us. we hates it.

I REALLY need to pull out those old VHS tapes and watch the old Baski films. Only one I dont own is the Return of the King (For a damn reason too). Anyways, Good review overall. While I do agree about Sauron in a way you cant forget most of the villians in Jacksons film. What really took me was of course Sarumon.

"Aw sword mean..." I remember first seeing the old versions when I was seven thinking, "What is this?" Great as always.

Funny that he mentioned the "Aruman" issue. My understanding is that there was some concern that people who hadn't read the books would confuse Saruman and Sauron. As such, Saruman became Aruman.

And they were just too lazy to edit the part where Saruman tried to talk Gandalf into giving the location of the ring away?

Yes, because somehow SORE-ON could be confused with Saruman....

*facepalm*

Star Wars vs Star Trek: Jean Luc Picard vs Count Dooku. X-Men and Lord of the Rings connect the two characters by actors. Jean Luc Picard is Charles Xaviar. Magneto is Gandalf. Sauraman is Count Dooku.
Disney vs WB: New Narnia vs Old LOTR (both works of the Inklings)

Aw, but I like Jackson's Sauron. If anything, it was the inspiration of the Overlord games, and that alone is worth something.