LOTR Animated vs LOTR
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 01:31
Check out our weekly custom image creator Marobot's DeviantArt Profile here
|
Doug's Official Facebook Page | Order the 4th Year Anniversary autographed image! Less Than 100 Left! Once they're gone they're gone! |
-
07.21.2009 - 21:34 | RarefinditNicely done.
-
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
-
07.12.2010 - 12:39 | ThatGuyNamedCanopenerdude
-
04.13.2010 - 09:43 | ChromeBallzCompletely 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.
-
10.17.2010 - 01:53 | Weltall84
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.
-
09.07.2011 - 12:18 | Kryss LaBrynYeah, 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.
-
07.22.2009 - 11:33 | HenkyHow awesome is it not that Anthony "C-3PO" Daniels is voicing Legolas? :P
-
12.30.2010 - 05:03 | SickBritKid
-
05.27.2010 - 17:34 | JohanTW
-
09.07.2011 - 12:18 | Kryss LaBrynLASTER! XD
-
07.21.2009 - 21:36 | SpazzMaster
-
07.21.2009 - 21:39 | Coldguy
-
07.21.2009 - 22:23 | RebelTaxi
-
07.22.2009 - 01:31 | jorneydo
-
07.22.2009 - 00:51 | TheAtomic
-
07.22.2009 - 20:12 | Lodeman AKA LARUCUS
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...
-
07.30.2009 - 05:15 | powermad9I never exactly liked them, but these movies are pretty cool.
-
07.21.2009 - 21:39 | TheDevilHand888
-
07.21.2009 - 21:40 | 12shotswooo!
-
07.21.2009 - 21:44 | NaxotahnjWell done sir.
-
07.21.2009 - 21:44 | darkpice
-
07.25.2009 - 12:19 | coconut
-
07.22.2009 - 04:04 | Strawberry EggsAh, 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!
-
07.21.2009 - 21:45 | TheDumbening
-
07.21.2009 - 21:50 | Digger318
-
07.21.2009 - 22:03 | The0ptimus
-
07.21.2009 - 21:55 | RanveerAnother great video NC.
-
07.21.2009 - 21:57 | ossemon
-
07.22.2009 - 09:16 | AufbruchWow. 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.
-
07.23.2009 - 20:00 | NOTYETUSEDNAMEI 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.
-
07.24.2009 - 01:11 | adrasl300Pfft!
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.
-
03.07.2011 - 01:23 | Lucia32"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.
-
07.24.2009 - 05:38 | adrasl300I 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.
-
12.30.2010 - 05:06 | SickBritKid
-
03.07.2011 - 01:23 | Lucia32Hey! We're (I'm a Lib myself) not all out of our gourds, pal!
Adrasl is just a troll.
-
07.29.2009 - 17:34 | blacktrojan3921
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.
-
12.30.2010 - 05:08 | SickBritKid
-
05.20.2010 - 04:31 | SickBritKid
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
-
07.21.2009 - 21:57 | Oceanic815
-
07.21.2009 - 21:58 | joshlamaYep, I Jackson worked best.
-
07.21.2009 - 21:59 | Animikean
-
07.21.2009 - 22:28 | Subtle Euphoria
-
12.23.2009 - 20:07 | aragornMaybe goullum bit it off!
He did that to Frodo if you didn't watch the movies.
-
07.21.2009 - 21:59 | Chosen Zelos
-
07.21.2009 - 22:02 | Jaws900
-
07.21.2009 - 22:03 | Downup
-
07.21.2009 - 22:03 | GlaciusX2
-
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.
-
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.
-
07.21.2009 - 22:05 | Euphonium
-
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.
-
11.27.2009 - 19:48 | aragornAnd they were just too lazy to edit the part where Saruman tried to talk Gandalf into giving the location of the ring away?
-
05.20.2010 - 04:32 | SickBritKid
-
09.20.2010 - 14:39 | monguin
-
07.21.2009 - 22:07 | SwordHero1Aw, but I like Jackson's Sauron. If anything, it was the inspiration of the Overlord games, and that alone is worth something.