The Animated Lord of the Rings Movie Part 1: The Fellowship of the Bizarre Creative Decisions

[@youtubehandlescostmemyusername]

That stink-eye Frodo gives Gandalf for not taking the ring is still one of my favorite animation disconnects ever.

[@rhaenyralikesyoutube6289]

Me too. I love Frodo's da fuq's face, it makes me laugh so hard.

[@Schwazoom]

"Don't let him turn me into anything unnatural." Looks like it's way too late for that, Sam.

[@volactic5240]

19:19

[@leandrobatt8122]

I love this version for all the reasons that you don’t... it’s bizarre and weird and amazing.

[@degrelleholt6314]

Yeah, it has some weird charm. Besides, this guy is a bit spoiled with the PJ movies. In the 70's, besides RB, this was it! No one would have touched this story with Aeglos set to 11.

[@peppermillers8361]

same deal here, it has that bakshi charm. I would still agree that the Jackson films are superior experiences, but this film is fun and weird in how overly ambitious it is (and how it arguably fails at hitting the mark).

[@greysnake2903]

@degrelleholt6314 Good joke.

[@loonowolf2160]

I don't love this 1970 version, everything rushed how to people can understand anything at all?

[@teriosshadow17]

I hold Peter Jackson's LOTR films dear to my heart, but Ralph Bakshi's take on LOTR is unique take on the book and has certain charm, despite its flaws like pacing issues. Some scenes in this film were clearly inspiration for Jackson.

[@pettytyrant2720]

The reason Aragorn looks native American is the same reason Boromoir looks Viking - given Bakshi knew there was not time to comvey a lot of background information he opted for visual shorthand. Striders most notable feature in the early parts is he is a ranger, and outdoor man who is great at tracking, in the 70's if a character was a tracker they were often a native American. For a 70's audience the native American look conveyed that information without the need to waste script time explaining it. Boromir is Gondorian, a race who originally were great seafarers and are also warriors, so he got a Viking look to convey that. The same can be applied to the Black Rider, Tolkien was big on language and the root of the word wraith means 'a twisted thing' so visually they are represented as being literally a twisted thing. Ideal? Certainly not, understandable given the time limitation, yes.

[@forestshepherd253]

The root of "wraith" is uncertain, butTolkien favoured "writhe" as the root-word, "to twist" etc.

[@Enricobon76]

your comment is vastly underrated...

[@beyondthecamera333]

Petty Tyrant Tolkien is more about language, Jackson is more about emotions and Bakshi is more about visuals.

[@sphtpfhorbrains3592]

@@beyondthecamera333 Hear hear, well said.

[@arckocsog253]

While I understand it, I don’t agree with these choices

[@isaakring2573]

"tom bombadil is overrated" *its treason then*

[@ventarfield7115]

This guy will never outlast father time himself.

[@FinrodFelagund5]

Tom Bombadil is my least favorite part of my favorite book.

[@jdunnatl]

😂🤣

[@FeguerFineArt]

Tom gets a bad rap! I think people just think he is silly, but I find him very mysterious. He is the oldest being in middle earth! The ring has no sway on him.

[@mattguthrie2205]

I checked the comments because of this. Now I’m commenting. Genius, Ryan.

[@gregoryporch8395]

I've called an asshole bar owner a "fat inkeeper who only remembers his name because people shout it at him all day" thanks to Aragorn.

[@Trendle222]

after u said that did you get ur ass kicked?

[@gregoryporch8395]

@Trendle222 No he called the police like a wuss

[@raurman4946]

You think the Lord of the Rings before Jackson was a cult following? It was the most selling book in history behind The Bible and was required reading in many English classes for decades across the world.

[@tiaaaron3278]

It was pretty popular. Jackson's films were second-age boosters of popularity.

[@luccirobbins6675]

Seriously. The Lord Of The Rings was to the 20th century, what Harry Potter was in the 21st century.

[@satanbrony9235]

There is short/tiny list of books that were more popular than it from the last century, but they are less significant. England, Canada, Australia and USA are not the world, in many places it wasn't even heard about until after the movies. (For example in my country the books were finally translated and released in late 2000s. The Silmarillion, one of my favourite books, was released here only in 2009.) For actual most of the world, the books were irrelevant until the movies. Tolkien's Hobbit became part of the suggested to read for school list only a few years ago.

[@officert5147]

the vibe I get is that it was disregarded as material to be adapted to the screen, but the books were very much beloved. So it was still pretty out there for Jackson to do what he did and he had a tough time selling it to studios, but that was less because the source material was unpopular and more because film had a long way to go to get to where we are today.

[@iantaylor3359]

The Bible also has a cult following though.

[@unorthodoxic4691]

I actually think Frodo giving Gandalf the stink-eye is actually smart characterization. Frodo is still very naïve and innocent of the world, so him giving such a silly, childlike reaction is appropriate. He doesn't fully understand the gravity of the situation, only that Gandalf is acting hysterical and not making much sense, at least to him.

[@Juanjolead]

Finally someone understands!

[@loonowolf2160]

No.

[@clonetrooper2003]

@@loonowolf2160 why not?

[@nuclearrabbit1]

The Bakshi movie is clearly inferior to the Jackson trilogy, but there had been nothing even remotely like it when it was released. For us early fans of the books, this was the best attempt to capture the flavor of the novels and held up for 30 years until Jackson came along. It was an iconic film for many of us, and broke new ground in many ways. Clearly there are issues with the film, many that could have been easily changed, but criticizing art from 40 years ago seems futile and misguided. You don't know the context of the era and the experiences of the movie going public to that point were far different than they are today. The fact that this movie was even made was pretty incredible for the times. I believe the Bakshi version is still a good film and deserves to be seen, at least for comparison regarding how it influenced the Jackson films.

[@dabiboi6458]

So you cant campare to thing just because one of them is better than the other?

[@born2fly145]

Course you can. I'm not the internet police. Just stating an observation. Do whatever you want.

[@ElvenRaptor]

@@Enricobon76 Thank you for the most confusing post ever. Did you have a point?

[@victoryrocca4799]

Rankin/Bass handles LOTR in a way more respectful way

[@susansoria8706]

I just was re-watching some of the film, and I agree with you completely. I wrote to the reviewer just now (as a visual artist & theatrical director in Chicago to state how much Bakshi's version influences my own work, especially as a young person , I was 11 when I saw the film, & despite certain flaws, I truly love how the attempt was made to hold true to the story. The reviewer does not speak for all

[@mikeobrien6704]

As a child I found the bizarre tone and look of the film fascinating. It was dark and almost disturbing. I would think about this film for days after I first watched it. I remember discovering the DVD years later as an adult. I rented it and watched it two or three times. When I watched Jackson's films I recognized the visuals that Jackson took from this film.

[@MijinLaw]

As a kid I was really stoked to watch this; I had seen the visual novel (yes -- the book of the film of the book) so I knew the visual style in advance and thought it looked cool. Then I watched the film, and...it was a slog. I couldn't understand why I didn't like it; the roto was cool, I liked the dark style, and it's LOTR FFS...why wasn't there a smile on my face?

Am I the only one who thinks that the Sauron's silhouette of the opening is just amazing? I know is just a dude in a cheap costume with a even cheaper filter, but I just love how vague and eerie the result is, just a black shadow over a hellish red and that's all you will ever see of him.

[@Grimfaxe]

Nah I love it as well 👍

[@elemerhabok3285]

I also love that during this film they applied not only 1, but ~3 animation technique.

[@merkaba48]

I love all the live action sequences in the film, it makes the experience feel dreamlike. In particular I love the two-tone orcs with their red glowing eyes and luminous teeth, they look properly demonic.

[@jessicaable5095]

Dunno about anyone else but as a kid I found the black riders way more terrifying than in Jackson's version. Yes, even with the walk. The walk was creeeeepy to six-year-old me

[@benalexander2104]

Agreeeeeeeeeeed. Entirely.

[@xXLunatikxXlul]

100%!

[@benalexander2104]

Still creeps me out now. They don't particularly need to be a martial threat - they're evil sorcerous ghosts!

[@michaelpuglisi1647]

Me too!

[@themoorchannel]

Black riders great in Bakshi’s movie. In fact, the movie is great. Impossible to understand without reading the books though.

[@diegoalzate8855]

Well still it's interesting to see that peter jackson took a lot of ideas from this film. Many scenes are almost equal

[@carlhiller9659]

Yeah that's true, I noticed that right at the first viewing

[@fressejetzt840]

Peter jackson is overrated

[@whodatninja439]

I mean he was inspired by the movie, he says so in documentaries

[@alonsoarana5307]

@@fressejetzt840 he made the Holy Trilogy, for that I owe him my life. No one else could've made something this fantastic

[@russellcasperson6695]

That's because a lot of these scenes are straight from the books. I cannot recommend reading the book or listening to the audiobooks enough.

[@RafaelSilva1981]

This film has more creativity and resources in one minute than many films have in their entire footage.

[@reportinglivefromhell222]

Or it's that so many of you expect to see exactly what you've seen in your brain then you're so fucking mad when it's not.. none of you go to the movies or sit down to watch a TV show or to be entertained anymore.. you sit down to be shown what's in your brain. This is why the statement, "the audience is fucking worthless" is too true.. truly wish more of you could stop the cancel culture mind set of everything needing to be all about what you want.. like how did entertainment go from being entertainment to needing to be exactly what one person in the world wants? If you want to go see what you want to see, then go fucking make it yourself.. or shut your fucking mouth when you realize it's not that fucking easy to just make something everyone will love. It's just like all the people bitching about Quentin Tarantino back in the day. Them all staying shit about it being too violent or some bullshit and if the violence was taking out them, then they'd go watch it..... well it's not so shut the fuck up and don't watch it. Not everyone makes everything for you and the rest of the narcissists in the world.

[@kuribayashi84]

Okay, I admit, this movie scared the hell out of me as a kid. And the dark and creepy backgrounds, compared with the unsettling uncanney-valley-ish Rotoscoping still makes it scary to look at. Some of the Animation is decent, Leonard Rosenman's musical score is very good and there is John Hurt giving the Character of Aragorn a lot of authority. To be fair, it did at least some things right, like adressing the 17-Year Timeskip. And also, I am grateful to this movie for introducing me to Middle Earth, so there is that. Overall, a brave and ambitious attempt but very, very flawed.

[@bleedingmasque.6193]

That studio was solely comprised of complete idiots. They could've had the best films of the time and ruined Bakshi's vision.

[@christophertaylor2462]

From what I'm seen, "a brave and ambitious attempt but very, very flawed" is kind of the summary of Ralph Bakshi's entire career.

[@Johnlindsey289]

How do you feel about the rotoscoping in Taarna's story in Heavy Metal, American pop, Fire and Ice, Jessica Rabbit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Undone and Scanner Darkly with Waking Life?

[@johansmallberries9874]

I like the style of the prologue. It’s portrayed as a pantomime shadow play, like a middle earth acting troop performing a show. In that context, the bad costumes, sets and acting makes sense.

[@alanpennie8013]

Yes. You can imagine the good folk of Hobbiton staging the story as a play.

[@rclark777]

It's a holdover from John Boorman's script. When the Hobbits got to Rivendale the story so far was explained via a play performed by the elves.

[@lumpofdirt69]

This movie sucks. Only people who like sniffing feet like this movie.

[@knightmare5097]

Yes, in that context. However, this isn’t in that context. So it still looks cheap

[@123100ozzy]

Its so clear tha this animation was the main source of inspiration for the movie. There are whole shots that can be put side by side.

[@danthomas2146]

I was lucky enough see both "Wizards" and "Star Wars" on the big screen back in 77 when I was 12. Bakshi rules!!

[@alicia1463]

Soooo....is anyone going to talk about how Aragorn doesn't seem to be wearing pants?

[@legendaryszoke]

Would you if you had balls that big 🤣

[@barbara-xt6cc]

Well, Seventys 😂

[@valmarsiglia]

Or that he appears to be Native American?

[@gnarfarmer]

he has a tunic, nobody ever wore pants for a very long time

[@karlwschipul5079]

@@valmarsiglia Meh, I thought he looked like Mr. Cunningham from Happy Days.

[@davout71]

I saw this on a school trip when I was 9. I loved it. When I was older and saw it again I appreciated the creative approach to animation. I don't think it is as awful as you make out but then again one's taste is subjective.

[@bingobongo1615]

Absolutely agree. It is an amazing niche movie. For lotr fans absolutely worth it

[@raul0ca]

Clickbait, my friend

[@dontevenlook]

I agree, he is trying to be funny and edgy, neither of which make for a good review.

[@PhoenixRiseinFlame]

I actually think the rotoscoped nazgul are very well done in this movie. I think it’s due to the fact that they don’t really have a face that can get morphed into weird shapes. The creepy animation style really hammers home the dark as twisted nature of the ring-wraiths.

[@michaelnally2841]

What probably didn’t help was this film have one tenth the budget of the Peter Jackson films

[@OneTrueVikingbard]

I watched this movie as a teenager, before I became a HUGE and diehard Lord of the Rings fan (no older than 14, if memory serves me well). One thing I remember from that movie, aside from the absurd horned helmet Boromir and Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum, was how bombed out and colorless it was in the rotoscoped shots. I mean, people complain about Zach Snyder but then say that *this* is high art? If I had to compare it to anything, I would put it on par with the Battle of Winterfell from Game of Thrones season 8. So dull, colorless, and lifeless. Good maybe for the backdrop of a music video for some hipster desert rock band like The Sword or Orchid, but not worthy of a feature length movie.

[@patmat7984]

Now here is a person who understands what he is talking about 💯 agree

[@SuperCarcher]

You youngling have the luxury of comparing this to Jackson’s movies. Back in the old times we had to walk uphill both ways thru snow and hail to see this movie and we were happy to have it. As a young art student I thought this was a masterpiece and I still have fond memories. Be kind to your elders, kids.

[@jenniferschillig3768]

Now get off my lawn.

[@mojotheaverage]

I get what you're saying, but my da has been reading Tolkien since the 60s and even at the time he has haaaaated this film

[@bu66l3p0p]

I'm 19 and I'm so happy my dad showed me old classics with my sisters all the time. I absolutely adore this film and its so upsetting to see how unappreciative alot of people in my generation are.. In all honesty too I prefer older classics to what films are now. The time and effort put into classics is so inspiring and amazing to meXx

[@hakkele]

none of these issues bothered me as a kid and I thought the movie was brilliant

[@sono_chi_no_sodium_chlorid7635]

Probably because you were a child back then. MAH NOSTALGIA

[@robertisham5279]

If you ask me the guy narrating this video is a bit of an asshole in my opinion. He may have brought up some valid points but hey there are some things about the movie that I liked better than the Jackson version.

[@robertisham5279]

@Juno Donat Yeah and actually this version is more similar to the book than the Jackson version including the dialogue of the characters. That's not to say I don't like the Jackson version I love it. But this version is not that bad. My main issue is that this version is rushed which I'll agree with narrator. But that's just about it.

[@bleedingmasque.6193]

Because you were a kid.

[@tiaaaron3278]

@@robertisham5279 What exactly in Bakshi's version was closer to the books? Buffoon Samwise? Disney Princess Galadriel? Laughable elf designs? Indian Aragorn?

[@fadingstarlight8]

I don't know how many times I've seen this duo or reviews, but it genuinely cures my depression. This review is art all by itself.

[@chiefmegadeth]

Loved the movie. and still, do!

[@merkaba48]

Huge entitled vibes here. It’s a great film for what it is and the year it was made in, and as a kid I adored it, and as an adult I appreciate the amount of care and effort that went into it.

[@murdockscott]

I would say that the lens of time has a distorting effect especially for young people who did not get a chance to enjoy this film at its release, most us us understood what it was, we understood the limitations it was made under, our expectations were well adjusted and we came out of the theater entertained. No one who was familiar with the original work expected anything beyond a little taste, we were tickled to see an interpretation of the epic that was in our minds eye partially brought to life. Let’s compare Peter Jackson’s work of a similar period. I like Meet The Feebles, but how flawed is THAT film? The point being, that given the tech of the time, the budget, the studio constraints, and challenge of the source material, going back and rudely beating up on this film seems... I dunno, unnecessary.

[@sulinash3554]

I think this film in Many ways is superior to Peter Jackson's adaption

[@robmarconi6758]

I agree. While I love Jackson's version, this will be close to my heart

[@paulw6057]

Unnecessary..? I'd say 'irrational'. Yes, I didn't like the fact that they made Boromir look like a Viking, left some characters out of it, and resented the fact that it didn't have an ending. Aside from that, however, I thought it was good for what it was. In fact, I'd say it did better than Peter Jackson's film at portraying the magic of Tolkien. As accomplished as those later films were, they overdid the 'faux history' angle of it and only a few scenes resonated the way the books did, such as the Hobbit's first glimpse of the Elves.

[@stridersmythe8860]

@@paulw6057 there was A part 2 planned , as it says in the end.

[@paulw6057]

@@stridersmythe8860 Yes, but it was never made. The 'resentment' was directed at fate, not the filmmakers.

[@boxxidraws7690]

I acknowledge its short comings but I still enjoy this film for what it is. The fact Bakshi even attempted to adapt the Lord Of the Rings is a commendable feat.

[@rhaenyralikesyoutube6289]

Same, but I love watching it anyway for its nostalgia value. Oh, and they tried to put more in the books in this cartoon for the fans.

[@Beardman29]

You are completely wrong about this classic film. It was a different era back then. Pre-internet, pre-home computer. This movie fired the imagination of every Tolkien fan who saw it. I was a boy of 11 when it came out and I loved it. Animation was still an evolving medium. It may not be the best but it was awesome at the time. Plus, voice work and music in it is outstanding. There was nothing at the time even close to it. Not to mention, it gave us a template for the Jackson movie. Thank you, Ralph Bakshi!

[@Johnlindsey289]

Agree and introduced 80s kids to Tolkein

[@HenryConway007]

27:40 Tolkien must’ve been spinning in his grave if that was an intentional homage to SNOW WHITE (he absolutely despised that film).

[@alanpennie8013]

He should have learned from it to limit the number of his dwarves

[@HenryConway007]

@@alanpennie8013 Personally, I prefer THE HOBBIT to Disney’s SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (I don’t hate the film as Tolkien did, but I’m not its biggest fan either. Personally, if I wanna watch an earlier Disney film, I’d rather watch PINOCCHIO.)

[@rclark777]

@@HenryConway007 Snow White was incredibly important for cinema history, creating many editing and storytelling techniques that even live-action films would later use. I like J.R.R Tolkien's writing, but he was wrong about Snow White. His harsh comments on it make my blood boil.

[@alexdraco9926]

@@rclark777 interesting that someone's opinion can be wrong so you may also take a your opinion is wrong card have a nice day

[@purplecobra52]

Uh, the shots, audio, and amount of characters are wildly different so I don't think so.

[@teetywoo3156]

I think that the film is great personally

[@Kraviken]

Same here..I wish they made part two.

[@josephbenson4413]

Mmmmm... it has a lot of personality, but it's not great. It's more like it is all we had.

[@qcrew2938]

Cringe animation

[@harrywalsh7276]

2:48 Howard Shore's music makes literally anything epic

[@jessicaable5095]

Could we appreciate the backgrounds for a sec? Those are some pretty pretty trees just outside the shire

[@AlisonBryen]

Yeah the backgrounds hold up to be fair. They remind me of a time in my childhood when most animation was hand drawn...which is a lovely thing.

[@npickle54]

Pretty pretty pretty

[@SoeinDude3]

Happy little Trees - Bob Ross

[@briansanchez9899]

You mentioned that you were going to judge this movie by it's own merits and yet you keep comparing it with another movie made with a lot more money, resources and time.

[@hitmewithmusic18]

thats exactly why he only has 2k subs

[@WolfGr33d]

And he hasn't spoken nary a word of how numerous scenes of the Jackson version took inspiration from / used the same cinematography of the Bakshi version. I'm not even a fan of Bakshi's films or his animation style, but I'll at least give credit where it's due.

[@thiagozimmerle2852]

Exactly

[@ginjaico_6132]

I think a lot of people put this version down because they are raised on Jackson's fantastic trilogy. For a couple of generations this is the only LOTR we had on screen and I love/loved every second of it. There's actually a lot of great lines from the book in this that Jackson leaves out... Possibly because this film does them so well.

[@dusk1234567890]

What about all the people who put it down...in 1978?

[@bleedingmasque.6193]

@Timothy Bakshi didn't make the Hobbit. That and the Return of the King 1980 were done by an entirely different studio.

[@nomar5spaulding]

@Timothy Yeah the Lord of the Rings trilogy is definitely way better, but that doesn't automatically mean everything else has to be bad.

[@horsemumbler1]

@Timothy The animated Hobbit was done by Rankin and Bass. It's too bad they didn't do Fellowship and Two Towers as well.

[@Grimfaxe]

Love this movie! Some character design looks funky but some do look really cool. Feels very classic d&d

[@szemjuelhont3574]

The sad thing is that lord of the rings could work really well with animation. There is a lot of potential but i doubt that’s ever gonna happen

[@beyondthecamera333]

Ey bro, «that goofy musical about the adventures of Bilbo Baggins» was actually really good.

[@sobersportsman]

Everybody wants to put down these movies. He was the only one with balls enough to attempt a film that the industry said couldn't be made. As much as I loved Jackson's movies they would have sucked without computer effects. Conan is another group of films that I defend. For those of us playing D&D in the 70's and 80's it was all we had and we were very grateful to have anything. And remember, these were made for kids.

[@andrewshobbybasement]

Aragorn revealing his true name during his first meeting with the hobbits is book-accurate, as is Aragorn recounting to them the Tale of Tinúviel on their way to Rivendell.

[@Green0Warden]

Half of this is the critic saying "I don't know what they were trying to do here." which is more of a critique of the critic, I'd say. When I watched this at 17 I understood what they were trying to do at each phase and easily grasped the various stylistic choices. While it wasn't a perfect adaptation it felt like an honest attempt at making a Lord of the Rings movie for people to enjoy, and the voice acting was excellent. There is a lot of nit-picking in this critic's video - the critic seems intent rather on voicing his own particular views than on actually attempting to see the film for what it is. The critic's taste also seems a bit.. idiosyncratic, with simple aesthetic choices or stylistic movements judged as beyond the pale. Perhaps the critic only has access to Jackson's works and has difficulty with change, or judging things without comparing them ceaselessly to things that came after (and were indeed homages and improvements in a lot of ways to this specific film.) A few rebuttals: Certain dramatic flairs (characters spinning, for instance) are mocked because the critic finds them unrealistic, but expressions of joy like that aren't that far removed from reality; I have literally jumped for joy and spun from happiness as an adult, and I am not a hobbit living in some idyllic Shire. To answer the critique of Sam - I believe the implication in Tolkien's works was that Sam was someone from the lower classes while Bilbo and his nephew were more "landed" gentry types; gentlemen of property and relative leisure. Sam was a gardener, someone whose rough demeanor was attempted here - perhaps a bit gratingly - but it was clear to me that he was meant to be a bit wide-eyed innocent, a bit country bumpkin. I don't think there's anything wrong with the portrayal besides leaning a bit too heavily on the bumpkin, and maybe the voice actor's accent laying it on thick. I *do* however think the use of the word "retarded" by the critic here is unacceptable; this isn't the 1990s, and it wasn't even okay then. Definitely a strong mark against the reviewer's credibility by casually saying that word like they're a high schooler from over twenty years ago. No matter how much you preamble your gross language with "hyur hyur I don't want to sound like an asshooollleee" well, you did sound like one. The animation/shadow play at the beginning: I enjoyed the odd take during the voiceover. The introduction of Sauron and the mythic elven and human forebears of Aragorn as dim figures in a red past seemed appropriate, and interesting to me. It was not confusing or jarring at all - the alternating art styles did not confuse me. Is the critic exaggerating when they lean on their confusion, or did they go through this film in a state of constant bemusement? Saruman of Many Colors - where is it written that he wears red in the film to symbolize his allegiance to Sauron? It is an odd choice to garb him in red, but it is not so hard to imagine that "the White" refers to his purpose as well as his wardrobe. He was the head of the White Council, and its name was chosen before he was appointed its leader - indeed Gandalf was Galadriel's choice to lead it, and it wasn't called the Grey Council. It is certainly odd to clothe him in red instead of white or many colors, but that said this seems more a neutral stylistic choice than a positive or negative one. (Saruman of *many* colors, not of one color - maybe he changed a lot and had some ROYGBIV closets of robes handy.) Overall: The critic complains a lot, and has a lot of negative things to say - but hardly gives the film the credit it's due for good voice acting and the gorgeous musical score. Additionally, the critic seems confused by things that are simple stylistic choices - and leans heavily on playing fun music behind out of context animation (40+ year old animation) - while casually tossing out a tidbit of ableist language for a cheap laugh. I won't be watching the other two halves of this critic's review, and certainly won't recommend this channel to anyone. I will say.. the balrog in this movie was ugly af.

[@lukaszspychaj9210]

'I do however think the use of the word "retarded" by the critic here is unacceptable; this isn't the 1990s, and it wasn't even okay then.' Literally everyone outside of internet groups of snowflakes uses 'retard' as an insult. I have never come across anyone who had a problem with it in the real world. 'ableist language' I assume we should show using words like 'dumb', 'stupid' and 'slow' then? Cause those mean pretty much the same thing.

[@vanuaturly]

@@lukaszspychaj9210 Maybe everyone in your particular circlejerk of illiterate asshats uses it, but out in the real world it is very much frowned upon.

[@bu66l3p0p]

I'm 19 and I'm so happy my dad showed me old classics with my sisters all the time. I absolutely adore this film and its so upsetting to see how unappreciative alot of people in my generation are.. In all honesty too I prefer older classics to what films are now. The time and effort put into classics is so inspiring and amazing to me.

[@bumpet4017]

5:44 The Scorching of the Shire? Really? It's the Scouring of the Shire. The Hobbits came back to the Shire and defeated the Men that were corrupted and even kicked out Saruman. Everything was put back to order by Merry and Pippin, and Sam planted new trees and even a Mallorn to replace the Party Tree. That's what it means by scouring, not scorching.

[@jordanp5283]

Guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Just making a video in hopes for views

[@jasonbower7763]

18:04 when he did the sound effects for those facial expressions I literally spat my drink out. hahahah

[@HeathenMetalhead221]

I like the this version. Frodo is better in it than the Jackson version. Aragorn is still badass and besides Sam most of the characters are still faithul to the book (Frodo being I think the biggest example) I like the rotoscoped animation. While not perfect, its super unique. Most of the battle of Helms Deep was filled with real actors in front of an actual castle and was actually a huge scale production. I think the biggest problem was making it only one film. If they went the three film route and fleshed everything out more this would've been the definitive adaptation of LOTR for the time. Still kudos to Ralph Bakshi for wanting to take it on and make it. You can tell he put his heart and soul into it.

[@shrimboi8909]

The voice acting were superb. The dialogue felt very Tolkien. I was mesmerized and pulled into the magical world the very first time I've seen it. The scenes were well put together so I don' know WTF ur talkin bout dude. LMAO

[@fejersen]

This was actually the movie that got me into the whole fantasy genre.

[@CUBEoneVX]

Btw the whole movie was shot in live action, then animated on top of it, thats why the movement is kinda fluid but choppy at the same time..

[@cascadecodymusic]

There are some points made in this review, however, it is evident that at some points your perspective on the source material is rather shallow, and because of that your qualms with the animated version reflect similarly. As if the films were comparable, let’s think about means in regard to production, Jackson’s resources were far beyond the threshold of Bashki’s. Also, these films utilize rotoscoping technology. A precursor to such tech as “CGI” Simply put, Jackson’s films would not be a masterpiece without those smaller, more modest, innovative, and still entertaining film. I can’t disagree with you more. Appreciate your effort though!

[@alabasterindigo]

I’ll admit I fairly like the movie still, and as an artist still see much to learn from it! For example I’m continually fascinated by how instead of the background characters being simplified (save for the guests at Bilbo’s party) they’re all very detailed with the rotoscope method they used. In contrast with the more simplified main cast it’s like a reverse of the method you commonly see in animation! (Detailed main cast, simplified background characters) I also noticed red ink was used a lot in the film’s backgrounds as much as black ink if not more so, especially to show when objects are being warmly lit. Examples are the inside of Hobbiton, the treetops on their way to Bree, and the bed frames at the Prancing Pony are all warmly lit and drawn with red ink. It’s a very interesting design choice that stays consistent throughout the film. I very much adore the backgrounds from this film they’re well done and while the main cast usually lacks shadowing in scenes the backgrounds are always very pleasing to look at. The rotoscope thing was always a tad odd but was very interesting to say the least. I like it because the characters it is used for (ex: Prancing Pony patrons, orcs, and so on) are provided a close attention to detail for the lighting (most of the time haha, pitch black orcs lol), and since the main cast lacks this it really helps draw out the mood of the scenes they’re involved in. From a practical standpoint I can see why it was implemented but I’ve always wanted to see the entire film shot this way (to see just how far they could push this technique and still keep it stylized) and also wish to see it but with the film’s characters all simplified (like Frodo, Gandalf, etc) with shadows applied to them. My brain always pictures Secret of Nimh art style but LOTR for the latter example. Overall it’s a very stylistic film that had very lofty intentions of taking advantage of new technology at the time and trying to push the genre. It certainly dropped the ball with many aspects but achieves what it set out to do, albeit in a very messy manner. It is an adaptation yes, it has some nice parts yes, but as a whole unfortunately failed to pull all the strings together and deliver an experience that was both genre pushing and pleasing to the eye 100% of it’s run time. It is an easily observed heavy inspiration for adaptations later to come and I think nonetheless it’s a fun experience, and ultimately that experience is what art is supposed to be. Edit 2023: Coming back a year later to this because I'm more familiar with Bakshi as an artist, I really respect him. He used rotoscoping so that he could get this film out faster and avoid wasting the better portion of his life on it, which was wise because it wasn't well reieved by self-diagnosed animation experts like this to begin with. Make what you want in this world gang

[@markmcla]

I agree with everything you said. And yet, I still loved this movie 🙂Thanks for the funny review!

[@joe9739]

I dig this version. Fire & Ice, American Pop, and Wizards are badass too🤘

[@MrDavidReads]

You lost me at "Tom Bomadil is overrated". Also, this film was my first exposure to Lord Of The Rings as a kid, so holds a very special place in my heart.

[@GabyGeorge1996]

What purpose does Tom Bombadil serve to the overall plot besides possibly being an OP incarnation of Eru Illuvatar? And yeah I get that he ties into the overarching theme of Industrialization vs the natural world, but he isn’t a key player in the events the same way someone like Saruman is.

[@alanpennie8013]

@@GabyGeorge1996 Tolkien shoe horned him in because he'd created the character a few years earlier and really liked him. He provides a bit of variety in the early chapters where we're feeling our way into the story but he's pretty redundant dramatically.

[@robinstubbings7659]

@@alanpennie8013 I like Matt Colville's take on Tom Bombadil kzbin.info/www/bejne/pWO4Z4V9aa2Cra8

[@alanpennie8013]

@@robinstubbings7659 Thanks.

[@alanpennie8013]

It's a great video. Possibly the best assessment of Tolkien I've encountered on KZbin.

[@jerartist127]

brilliant movie with terrific animation, one of my favorites

[@MDFMKisKMFDM]

This was the only version available to me as a kid and I LOVED IT - so much so that after seeing it back in 85 on VHS i quickly picked up the Hobbit and well the rest is history.....

[@Comakino]

"Before Peter Jackson the Lord of the Rings was nothing more than a cult following" - this is just wrong.

[@brettmuir5679]

Dear "Rational" Ryan, I love love love you being "scorched" in the comments. Good luck with your narrow mind going forward into the future. This movie was mindblowing and still is. I am still so sad there never was a part 2

[@negulipersonal]

18:24 - Arvo Part - My heart is in the highlands Thanks for reminding me about this song. Never expected to hear it in a video about a 40 year old lotr adaptation

[@regpett3730]

I'm always surprised when people say this movie is bad or worse mediocre. Especially today, when it comes to big franchise names mainly, I don't ever see much vision for a particular story. Ralph's LOTR is VERY strange in its art direction with the rotoscoping, the old school writing and such and I LOVE it for that. I will say that the second half of this movie the style kind of stagnates a bit and seems like it gets kind of samey for lack of a better term. For the most part though, this version of LOTR has and will always put a smile on my face for how far out there Ralph decided to go with it. It really feels like a dream with the choice of colors like the sinister reds and the gross greens for the orcs and battle scenes but also the nice use of purples and blues in Rivendell. I'd rather watch the equivalent of a child making macaroni art and putting their all and vision into it vs an "artist" that just looks to hit the quota boxes and be as inclusive to audiences in an effort to make as much money from the box office as possible. The more vision applied to a piece of art, the more divisive the audience, which Ralph does beautifully with this. I'm always glad to hear someones opposing view on a piece of art! So anyone that is reading this that disagrees with me, please don't think I mean to say your opinion is wrong by any means, there are just some pieces of art that I want to help give some representation too. Id love to hear more in depth thoughts if anyone happens to stumble upon this comment. One sin though I will never forgive Ralph for is what they did to my boy Sam-wise.

[@WeListenAndWeDoJudgee]

I love this animated version. But your commentary got me 😂😂 I always thought it was so trippy.

[@hadtopicausername]

Seeing this film on TV actually made me curious about the story, so I went ahead and bought the book. I'd call that a success :)

[@TheDudiest3Dude]

This film is great, and I won't hear otherwise

[@brooksboy78]

"The scorching of the Shire"???? Jesus Christ.

[@ethanskywalker]

The chapter is actually known as "The Scouring of the Shire."

[@cumulushalo576]

I never knew this until I watched this video from mundane matts distant cousin rational Ryan.

[@koholintz3125]

as soon as he called it that i had to stop the video 💀

[@OSCARSoulExperience]

Bro this editing is hilarious, laughed so much during character animation part hahaha

[@johnmckinney5931]

Even if it didn’t turn out great, I still think their effort is commendable

[@xaviermartinez4313]

The animated film was huge to me as a kid and then the PJ films came along and are my favorites of all time. Thank you for talking about both and nerding out on them. These videos have helped me through some tough work shifts.

[@mrblobby7864]

While I personally like this film, your review is honestly great! The editing is really good and I can't believe how few subs you have! I personally blame the studio for the rushed nature of the film. If Bakshi had gotten 3 movies like he wanted, his vision for the series would have been much better realised.

[@bleedingmasque.6193]

Anyone up for an LOTR fan film project? I'm thinking we take the style and technology and make the movies in the way they would've been if the studio wasn't a piss pot about the film. And please, we need to change just a few of the creative decisions.

[@StormDatIsApproaching]

@@bleedingmasque.6193 great idea!now we only need screen writers, directors, animators, a dozen good pcs with the proper software and graphic tablets, and a bunch of other people and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[@JoseCastro-fn9xs]

Sam looks like a frog that was turned into a old lady that transgered into a hobbit

[@cactussenpai5473]

Can I just say that this whole video made my day and you broke the record by making me laugh more then a 100 times. It is absolutely atrocious that this only has 16k views I really hope people discover this hidden treasure. You clearly put a lot of time and effort into this analysis and I just wanna thank you on behalf of all the people who need to watch this XD Also yes you were biased with Jackson's trilogy but its ok because who isn't

[@arktheball]

MAN I forget how much I love reality itself warping around Gandalf when he lets some of his power show in front of Bilbo! Peter Jackson just understands LOTR and how to communicate the book in film!

[@delcodanglin9382]

I just couldn’t get past them going from Sauruman to Auruman off and on throughout the movie

[@bethrappeport9381]

Or insulting the audience by insinuating they wouldn’t be able to hear the difference.

[@darrr1014]

They couldn't complete the movie because they ran out of money and the budget was do damn low. So, be grateful for what you got

[@w_metzger]

Good lord, while watching this I thought it had at least a half a million views. Dude, you did an epic job, it deserves to be seen much more

[@johnalucard7860]

It is of its time.I have an appreciation for it.

[@georgehopwood452]

The black rider used to really scare me, much more than the peter Jackson ones. They are more creepy.

[@Herr_Schindler]

Jackson's riders more accurate to the books lmao

[@bobo577]

I would say the Bakshi versions aren’t great when first introduced. However... Once they start pursuing the Hobbits to Weathertop, that’s when they get good in terms of threat. They look more credible when they aren’t shambling around like zombies.

[@chaosthebaryonyx6344]

Design is great in both versions but the sound effects they have are considerably worse here.

[@hyacinthlynch843]

The sequel to this is Rankin-Bass' animated version of ROTK. Which is quite good.

[@keithwilson6060]

I saw this in the 70’s in a small village of Louisiana where many of the people considered this HISTORY. It was almost a riot in the house when it ended like it did.

[@musicaleuphoria8699]

Really? Jeez, was this village deep in the bayou?

[@keithwilson6060]

@@musicaleuphoria8699 Natchitoches, LA

[@TomekFior12]

omg this is hilarious. I'm dying laughing. I can't wait to watch part 2. good job lol

[@Yikkoofficial]

As a Lord of the Rings fan- this video made me laugh. I do actually like the animated version as well. It is interesting to see the stark similarities that were used in Jackson's version.

[@lukebrown3658]

Well I can’t blame Jackson for cutting out Tom babadil. He’s not completely necessary to the plot they meet him after getting attacked by the barrow wights and he’s just a quirky character that almost acts as a rest stop. Now the wights were cool but were also cut out. Sacrifices were made but let’s be honest nobodies ever gonna top those movies, they still hold up so well even today

[@FaidoPlays]

Still, Bombadil is great. Also very mysterious. In fact, Tolkien never even gave an answer on what Tom is.

[@Sandror22]

I don’t think I’ve ever laughed this hard in my entire life

[@TigglyWiggly719]

Samwise actually means "Half Wise." Naming someone that isn't an insult, though, The meaning softened over time and it's just considered mildly amusing at best, but maybe Bakshi read the appendices and ran with it.

[@d.b.scoville]

Apparently people take it really personally when you dont like this movie

[@robmarconi6758]

I think there's a difference between not liking something and completely shitting on it

[@11kittyk]

I absolutely love your editing! I haven't laughed that hard in a while 😂👏 I'm usually not able to criticise films that I like. This one holds a special place in my heart. But I was absolutely CREASING at your analysis! Splendid job sir 🌟

[@evenstar1608]

Lets' face it, Bakshi animation is the basis of the triology. Whatever shortcomings were there, Peter Jackson made it better. Hail to the masterpiece!!!

[@gorgolyt]

😂

[@kari8187]

I recall watching this as a kid and being confused because there was no ending 🤣 I just forgotten it completely, thank you

[@manwithnoname1670]

Watched this movie when I was a kid cause my dad bought the VHS version (which I still own). Of course I watched this after watching and rewatching and rewatching the Peter Jackson's adaptation. I think it's an amazing cartoon. I love the creepy mood of Middle Earth.

[@zoecast1]

Your editing is so funny!! Thank you love the references

[@NovemberTehPlumber]

I personally don't think Bakshi's Lord of the Rings was bad to be honest, though it's far from being good either. Yeah it's hokey, the pacing was rushed at most places and slow at others, scenes that didn't make any lick of sense like Gollum animated to look like he was freestyle rapping or the characters calling Saruman "Aruman" randomly, and characters rarely got time to be developed. With that the film suffers as both a film and an adaptation since United Artist didn't want to take a risk of making two parts to a film they thought (and rightfully so at the time) no one wanted to pay for half of a two part film which is why Bakshi never made it far to Return of the King. By the way I laughed my ass off at 14:36. This needs to be a new meme!

[@blacknapalm2131]

*Still better than Peter Jacksons 'The Hobbit' or Amazons 'The Rings of Power'*

[@kurtbarks6270]

I love the Monty python analogy! Perfect.

[@Wojti2000Zapasowe]

While I do agree with many of your points, I must admit I really dig this movie's dark backgrounds and aesthetic.

[@swamijohnson]

Context is relevant in understanding the appeal of this film. Not just the available technology but people's general consciousness. Like it is today. Case in point, the fact that you reacted with that laugh at Frodo's sneer. That's exactly the reaction the audiences had in the theater because it was meant to do that, lighten the scene. It was '70's humor and audiences loved it. Today's animation is so dense now with information, but for the time it was amazing to see that kind of emotion expressed by a realistically animated character, and precisely because Disney would never do that (actually, Disney does it all the time now! But Bakshi was way ahead of that curve). And the beginning switching between silhouetted figures and animation was easily accepted by audiences of the day. It gradually lets you enter the world of Middle Earth. And I think it also gives more realism to the animated part by not being quite as satisfying to look at. Admittedly, even at the time, I always thought it was a little cheesy looking. But people moved differently in the '70's. We weren't as hyper fixated on physicality like people are today. This was way before Michael Jackson became the king of pop (which completely transformed R&B), and way before the world discovered Hip-Hop (which drastically changed the way everybody moved all over the world). You'll never see anyone walk like they do in the films and TV of today in anything pre 1985. And go back to the '40's and people moved still differently. So, Frodo dancing in a circle with happiness centuries ago is totally believable, and exactly what audiences in the '70's would expect a Hobbit to act like. And while there are so many details left out in general, its because you know the new movies and every detail so well. We had no trouble getting drawn into the story at the time. And even the subtle introduction to the characters felt smooth and natural. In fact, that's one of the problems I have with the new version and lots of modern films in general. They lack subtlety. Every little thing is over emphasized to the point of overkill. That's what people are used to today. But back then, while the animation does look choppy, at the time it was the most nuanced stuff we had ever seen. If you look at Disney's Snow White, for example, its choppy by today's standards, too. And Disney was famous for making animators redo cels all the time until he was satisfied with the results. Bakshi didn't have that kind of budget, and the movie definitely suffered for it. I actually never noticed how much the eyes bulge and change until I watched this critique. But since nothing else like it existed, we were totally immersed in the film's reality, including its more surreal aspects. Now, I didn't watch your whole critique because you probably don't give Gollum a great review either. But for me, that's actually the part of the Jackson version I like the least. Bakshi's Gollum will always be Gollum for me. Again, overkill. But I get it, if that was the one you saw first, Scitzo-Gullom is your guy. The Barock on the other hand never really impressed me. He definitely could have been cooler. Especially those butterfly wings! But if I may say one scene that Bakshi did much better was the death of Boromir. The slo-mo and violins treatment that Jackson used was so cheesy. It had none of the intensity that Bakshi achieved. In fact I find all the acting in the new version way too serious. Bakshi managed to get more personality into all the characters even though they were cartoons. In this respect I find the newer version more corny and the older one more realistic. But its certainly true that today's animation is phenomenal. But Bakshi really paved the way and helped animation become more multidimensional.

[@swamijohnson]

Sorry. I meant Balrog.

[@peregrintook9783]

14:20 “Your love for the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind.” - Saruman

[@ArnoldTohtFan]

18:09 when you let slip a really rancid fart and catch a whiff

[@sbskinner369]

You helped me to pin point the problems I had with this movie, but was unable to express.

[@usmcfutball]

Seeing this as a young adult at the time was bone crushing. I was like: "This is NOT the world of Middle Earth". Absolutely hilarious (and spot on) commentary. On to Part II!

[@VidWatcher01]

14:36 - 14:46 took me out!😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂💀💀💀

[@musicaleuphoria8699]

Nothing like seeing Gandalf twirling to "America".

[@keelobrown4991]

Jackson wanted to make two films out of a story that needed three(lotr) but made three films out of a story that only needed 2 (hobbit) lol

[@blitz8425]

Tbf, the latter was a studio decision.

[@forestshepherd253]

@@blitz8425 So was the first!

[@TheSilverPhoenix100]

That last one wasn't his call that was Warner Bros trying to milk as much as they could out of the franchise

[@fingolfin897]

I was thinking the same thing! Lol I know it wasn't that simple, but I totally get what you're saying :) End of video edit: You're HILARIOUS and I'm so glad there's a part 2. I'm definitely checking out what else you have after this!! Also I seem to agree with MOST of what you say lol Especially regarding the animation styles, awkward movements, and the portrayal of Sam, The Nazgul, and the odd choice to make Aragorn a Native American. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings has been my favorite set of movies since they came out and they probably always will be 😁

[@fingolfin897]

24:14 Saruman says that in the book and he is described to shine with all the colors in his robe in, I believe, a pretty dazzling way. Growing up I was never really fully able to picture how that would look, but this is about as close as you can get for the time. It looks really good in my opinion!

[@Jabberstax]

Every LOTR adaptation had good things and bad things about them. The best by far is the 1980 BBC radio version.