Jackson's LOTR vs. Bakshi's LOTR

[AFGNCAAP]

The like/dislike threads on LOTR has got me thinking about this.

I watched my copy of Bakshi's animated LOTR recently, & I noticed certain things which both Bakshi's work & Jackson's work left out or changed, & some elements which were retained.

I was wondering which elements you may have noticed, & whether or not these elements should have been included/excluded.

For example, Glorfindel in both versions has been replaced by another character (Legolas in Bakshi's version; Arwen in Jackson's).

Both films removed references to Tom Bombadil.

Bakshi's version has Aragorn carrying Narsil (though not as shattered as the version in Jackson's movie), & he carries an intact sword later on (though nothign was really mentioned about Narsil being reforged into Anduril).

Bakshi's version also hints toward the passage of time in the movie (17 years since Bilbo's birthday party & when Frodo leaves the Shire), and, IIRC, has a much more accurate depiction of the incident at the Prancing Pony.

Though both versions show Boromir's death (which, IIRC, isn't told until the start of Two Towers), Jackson's film stayed within FOTR, while Bakshi's version ends at the Battle of Helm's Deep, well into Two Towers.

Overall, I prefer Jackson's version, though there are some details which I wish were included.

Any other thoughts/comments/gripes?

 

[Dundragon]

Well, I wouldn't mind the Bakshi version as much if it didn't cause all viewers to make a Fortitude save DC 50 or suffer a heart attack. I'm at a loss as to how you can compare the two...

The Bakshi version used bad rotoscoping and horrible actors, basically ruined the entire mood of the story with bad jokes, and misrepresented most everything that Tolkien readers admire. Not to mention that upon running out of money, Bakshi decided that he was just going to roll the credits, with no mention that the story isn't actually over, and that the hobbits will actually destroy thing ring. I almost fell off the couch when I saw that...and then I started looking for the second videotape... (which doesn't exist).

IMO the bakshi LoTR is one of the worst animated films ever made...yarr!

 

[Wicht]

the fact that he ran out of money and never finished the thing has always upset me as much as anything else about it - oh except maybe that wierd blend of live actors and animation

 

[graydoom]

I've seen both, and I preferred Jackson's. It just seemed more real.

 

[Sulimo]

I actually dont mind the Bakshi version, and strangely my annoyance at certain aspects of it have even lessened since I saw the Jackson version.

Simply put, there are certain parts of the Bakshi version I preferred because they are a more literal adaption. The Bree, Rivendell (including the Ford) and Lorien stuff especially.

Sure, the quality of the animation goes from average to horrible. But I really would've liked to have seen the scripter of this have a crack a 3-4 hr version of FOTR.

Thats not to say I think that the Bakshi version comes close to being a film as good as Jacksons. But I do prefer a lot of the adaption choices that the writer of the Bakshi script did. Its a 'closer' adaption'.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Both versions have advantages and disadvantages regarding what they chose to keep in, change, and drop. Obviosuly, the newer one is better from a visual standpoint.

The lack of Glorfindel in both versions was a real sticking point for me; when he's mentoned in council ("even an elf-lord like Glorfindel" couldn't bring the Ring to Mordor by Force), it was a major story point, I thought.