Ralph Bakshi version

My favorite part of the books may have also been the descriptions of the landscapes; it created a backdrop of the area for me. Then the characters like Bergil and Beregond established the mood and painted the backdrop so it wasn't barren.

I thought I'd glance at the script for FotR and I already see problems with it on the first page.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Lord-of-the-Rings-Fellowship-of-the-Ring,-The.html

While the opening montage might be effective and economical, did they have to to oversimplify it so much? I think both versions suffer from this.

I also think both versions depict events transpiring without showing why.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am just amazed that people who seem to have so little liking, and so little regard for Tolkiens dialogue would want to be the ones to make his work into films.
Imagine someone wanting and not just wanting, but moving mountains to get a Shakespeare play adapted for the screen, undertaking years of hard work to see it made, but doing it all without actually liking the language or wanting to use his words.
It boggles my mind as to why.

Well the cynical answer would be that PJ just wanted to make a big SFX-heavy fantasy epic, and he just used LOTR to provide a framework for him to play around in as a director. An even more cynical answer would be that he just wanted to cash in on the name recognition, but I don't think the evidence for that is sufficient for such an accusation.

A more charitable answer would be that PJ enjoyed LOTR for its worlbuilding and cool battles and stuff rather than a nuanced appreciation of Tolkien's use of language.

but I don't think the evidence for that is sufficient for such an accusation.- Eldo

I agree. It doesnt add up for those reasons.

And whilst your charitable answer might be true of Pj it doesnt explain why the Coven wanted to do it when they dont seem to like Tolkiens writing any more than Pj does.
Its a puzzler.

"I also think both versions depict events transpiring without showing why."- Radaghast

Id agree with that. PJ also gives way too much away far too soon and long before its required or desired in the plotting.

Arguing about the dialogue in LOTR being modern is just quibbling. Its an adaptation and its obviously truncated for cinema. I dont understand how anyone can watch those films and not be struck by the beauty of the Language used. Just taking one character as an example, Boromir. His speeches are very Tolkien inspired if not to the letter. I cant think of one example of modern words creeping in to spoil the atmosphere. The dialogue had a particular world building quality to it and never felt to me like its was out of place. Not once did I feel it was not part of ME. Its nice when they use word for word dialogue but PJ didnt need to as he conjured up ME without it.

In contrast the dialogue in The Hobbit films was the worst kind of banal rubbish. Modern phrasing and even words popped up out of the blue, and worse than that modern mannerisms which completely ruined any sense of ME.

I think the final word has to be that clearly PJ's version convinced more people to read the books than Bakshi's version, which if anything convinced people not to read the books.

If you believe that Tolkien is his own best advertisement, then taken as a whole PJ must have been closer to Tolkien.

First off, How adorable is that kitten.....Re:- Figgs   
Then, after reading most of this thread I think...society, or rather the perception of society, has steered Peejeers to use the diluted language that he did use for LOTRs. He condensed it down to practically base level.It was verbally recognisable by the masses, so selling the film was easier. Cant have something as complicated as say, "Coriolanus" ? to listen to, take to long to work out what the words meant !  It was still acceptable I think, the lines the actors used, It didnt offend me as The Hobbit has ! fook, what vile toilet dross of wording was that !! PJ just got away with it in LOTRs,but, if he had only included just a smattering of original language from Tolkien !! There were bits idly strewn out throughout the films, chucked about here & there, bits said at the wrong time by the wrong people but, cos it was written by Tolkien, Peejeers must have thought "that'll do" ...."We'll stick this line here & have so & so say it, it goes so...." Just cos some words matches the scenery it doesnt always make it right. Majority of Shakespeare's work is still kept in its original text, if its altered the billing says so.
(love the kitty Figgy ! )

Mrs Figg I direct you to the Faramir thread to listen to the short extract there.
Compare the language and the rhythms and the construction to that which PJ gave us and tell me with a straight face PJ's version is not modern.

I agree wholeheartdely Azriel.   

It may be necessary to condense dialogue and truncate lines, depending on the type of adaptation but I still don't see the justification for the changes in PJ. Just don't.

Take this line by movie-Galadriel:

And Nine...nine rings were gifted to the race of Men who, above all else, desire power.

First of all, correct me if I'm wrong, is this line anywhere in the book? If it is, I'll shut up. But right now, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not. Because it's a blanket statement, a gross oversimplification, arrogantly spoken and, frankly, an insult. I'll be shocked if it's in the book.

Second of all, who the hell is Galadriel talking to?!  

How about this?

IMAGE: SAURON lays waste to the armies of the LAST ALLIANCE. With desperate courage, ELENDIL leads a charge...THE BLACK
MACE OF SAURON LASHES OUT!! IMAGE: ELENDIL'S body falls like a crumpled rag doll... IMAGE: ISILDUR cradles the body of his father in his arms. The SHADOW OF SAURON falls over him...

                   GALADRIEL (V.O.) (CONT'D)
         It was in this moment..when all hope had
         faded, that Isildur, son of the king,
         took up his father's sword.

ISILDUR snatches up the BROKEN BLADE OF NARSIL..The BLADE severs SAURON'S FINGERS... AND THE ONE RING FLIES from his body.

Okay, why would Sauron, after just having used his mace on Elendil, reach with his hand for Isildur on the ground? For a dramatic moment? Is there no other way to create drama that doesn't require making it also be head-crashingly stupid?  

I like all that stuff.    I think its awesome

Mrs Figgs wrote:I like all that stuff.    I think its awesome

Isn't that a different argument than if the dialogue is modern sounding or not though?

not really because I dont think LOTR is modern sounding.

Fair enough then.

Mrs Figg wrote:I like all that stuff.    I think its awesome

I think it's anti-awesome; and anti-logical too.    

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Mrs Figg I direct you to the Faramir thread to listen to the short extract there.
Compare the language and the rhythms and the construction to that which PJ gave us and tell me with a straight face PJ's version is not modern.

Most of PJ's dialogue is not what I would describe as modern (several glaring counterexamples notwithstanding as most of those are quite brief). I'm sure it's less "authentic" than Tolkien's, and is probably a (not entirely consistent) mix of different styles rather than a manner in which people ever actually spoke, but it's not modern either. IMO.

Radaghast wrote:First of all, correct me if I'm wrong, is this line anywhere in the book? If it is, I'll shut up. But right now, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not. Because it's a blanket statement, a gross oversimplification, arrogantly spoken and, frankly, an insult. I'll be shocked if it's in the book.

You are correct, it's not in the book.  The films are definitely more misanthropic than the book.  However, I suspect this is less due to any philosophical differences between Tolkien and Jackson and more just PJ and Co. being all like "elves are so totally kewl and way more awesome than humans!"

Second of all, who the hell is Galadriel talking to?!  

I wouldn't overthink voiceover narration.

Okay, why would Sauron, after just having used his mace on Elendil, reach with his hand for Isildur on the ground? For a dramatic moment? Is there no other way to create drama that doesn't require making it also be head-crashingly stupid?  

Yeah, it's pretty contrived, but I do think it's a nice scene.

For me what both adaptions seem to lack is a basic love of their subject matter. They are both attempts at making epic fantasy movies, not great portrayals of Tolkiens work. That basic love and care is what's lacking from both of them for me.

I think it's been to long since I saw the Bakshi versions to get into a discussions of degrees though.

Eldorion wrote:

Radaghast wrote:First of all, correct me if I'm wrong, is this line anywhere in the book? If it is, I'll shut up. But right now, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's not. Because it's a blanket statement, a gross oversimplification, arrogantly spoken and, frankly, an insult. I'll be shocked if it's in the book.

You are correct, it's not in the book.  The films are definitely more misanthropic than the book.  However, I suspect this is less due to any philosophical differences between Tolkien and Jackson and more just PJ and Co. being all like "elves are so totally kewl and way more awesome than humans!"

Yeah, before that, there was "elves, fairest of all beings." Wow, including the Maiar, the Valar and Iluvatar?

Second of all, who the hell is Galadriel talking to?!  

I wouldn't overthink voiceover narration.

Why not? In this movie it seems an awful lot like breaking the fourth wall.

Okay, why would Sauron, after just having used his mace on Elendil, reach with his hand for Isildur on the ground? For a dramatic moment? Is there no other way to create drama that doesn't require making it also be head-crashingly stupid?  

Yeah, it's pretty contrived, but I do think it's a nice scene.

Well, we'll have to disagree there (and I thought Sauron looked ridiculous). But, anyway, it would have been a nice touch if Isildur cut off Sauron's foot as a nod to The Silmarillion; or at least stabbed him in the leg or foot, causing him to fall. I think that would have made more sense and been truer to the book.

The fourth wall isn't inviolate.  Tolkien himself openly disregarded it at times, though more often in The Hobbit.  That said, if they wanted the narration to be in the style of Tolkien's storytelling, then they should have had it be delivered by Bilbo or Frodo.  Interestingly, they actually did have Holm and Wood record the lines (as well as a couple other actors) before deciding to us Cate Blanchett's take.

Sauron's armor was definitely not practical (though not as bad an offender as the Witch-king's helmet from ROTK).  You won't get any argument from me here.  Honestly, this sort of thing used to bother me several years ago, but I really don't mind it anymore and sometimes it even offers a cheesy sort of charm.  I understand where you're coming from but it just isn't a big deal to me at this point.  I do think, though, that it would have been cool to see a fight between Sauron, Elendil, and Gil-galad, but that would probably have been too long for the prologue considering everything else they wanted to cover.

Eldorion wrote:The fourth wall isn't inviolate.  Tolkien himself openly disregarded it at times, though more often in The Hobbit.  That said, if they wanted the narration to be in the style of Tolkien's storytelling, then they should have had it be delivered by Bilbo or Frodo.  Interestingly, they actually did have Holm and Wood record the lines (as well as a couple other actors) before deciding to us Cate Blanchett's take.

I don't mind a disembodied narrator talks to the audience if he or she does it throughout the movie. For a character to do it and only once kind of takes me out of it. I can't say I recall any instance of the narrator addressing the reader in LotR, though.

Sauron's armor was definitely not practical (though not as bad an offender as the Witch-king's helmet from ROTK).  You won't get any argument from me here.  Honestly, this sort of thing used to bother me several years ago, but I really don't mind it anymore and sometimes it even offers a cheesy sort of charm.  I understand where you're coming from but it just isn't a big deal to me at this point.  I do think, though, that it would have been cool to see a fight between Sauron, Elendil, and Gil-galad, but that would probably have been too long for the prologue considering everything else they wanted to cover.

I don't think have taken more than a few minutes more—5 tops—with skillful editing. Besides, if they wanted to create a dramatic moment there, why go cheap with it?

I have the Bakshi version of LOTRs on dvd and awful as it is with how hes depicted the Hobbits etc Im drawn to the darn thing  well, good old Ebay had this the other day & I Just had to bid for it & guess who won  The pictures are great, clear and vibrant. I havent listened to the 7inch vinyl yet, Im saving that for when boredom sets in, but I havent seen anything like this before.

So they had gotten that far...

{{ Sort of Halfy- thats the Rankin Bass version they decided to do to finish it off, but its also sort of a standalone film somehow, and Bakshi didnt have much if anything to do with this one far as I know. Its based on the Rankin Bass Hobbit film.}}

It's not bad actually. Has some nice moments.