I read Michael Zupan's DVD review of The Lord of the Rings at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=41487 and think you were completely off. Ralph Bakshi never intended on cramming "half of the entire Rings trilogy into a 133 minute runtime" as you say, he actually intended on make a second and final part but the studio never gave him a chance. So he was forced to take what he had and make the best of a bad situation. In many ways it's a really good job and accomplishes many things that the live action version never could.

If you are interested in seeing a "second part" to this then I advise you to check out Rankin & Bass' animated Return of the King.

Thanks for reading the review Eric!

I mentioned in the review that I understood he had a terrible time with the studio in the Extras section, and I also mentioned about how there was no ending, no foreshadowing as to what would have been in the next installment. That still doesn't change the fact there was -zero- ending. The ending should have been anticlimactic, but it was nothing. It also doesn't change the fact that the rotoscoping used in this film is amongst the worst execution I've ever seen in animated history.

Regardless of what did or did happen after this film or what strings the studio pulled while Bakshi put a lot of blood sweat and tears into this thing... this has to stand on its own. And this film... in my honest opinion of course, was complete, and utter garbage.

I know how you feel. I felt the same way when I saw "Return of the King" in the theater. I couldn't believe they had some idiot running around in a "Goonies" mask and that a third of the film seemed to be wasted on a nutcase who wanted to burn his son at the stake. Add the fact that the entire movie seemed to be shot in slow motion and it made for a rather dull evening at the cinema. I didn't really like the Bakshi cartoon when I saw it in the theater, but at least it was shorter.

Eric, read back what you quoted. Bakshi's film is half the LOTR story, and it's 133 minutes long. So even if he had made the second film, he still very definitely crammed "half of the entire rings trilogy into a 133 minute runtime" in the first film.

However, to be fair to Bakshi, he initially wanted, and initially got greenlit, 3 films to tell the trilogy. Then that was negotiated down to two. Then while in production at MGM, the bottom dropped out of the production, so he had to quick rescue it and move it to UA. I'm sure he was under a tight budget and timeline. Then UA dropped "Part One" from the title.

Here's some links for history on the project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lor...281978_film%29
http://www.avclub.com/articles/ralph-bakshi,13690/
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-l...ngs-dvd,17847/

Some deleted scenes/animation:
http://www.ralphbakshi.com/films.php...therings_bonus

Also, it's interesting to note that Jackson's trilogy was originally in pre-production as a 2 movie series, with the screenplay for the first movie consisting of all of FOTR, TTT, and the beginning of ROTK. One wonders what they had put into the screenplay for the second film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lor...gy#Development

I'll say this, I admire Bakshi if nothing else. I admire what reasoning drives him to do what he does, and I wish more people were doing things that wouldn't exactly be politically correct, and won't care what Hollywood has to say about his vision. I didn't like his vision on this film, but I have to applaud him for his values.

I can appreciate the review in the context of a post-Jackson LOTR trilogy. And that is proper because most who would need a review of Bakshi's LOTR will naturally compare it to Jackson's epic.

I saw Bakshi's LOTR in theatres during its initial theatrical run. In 1978 there was no CGI special effects. The thought of a live-action LOTR trilogy was only a pipe dream (literally) of Tolkien fans. For all of its shortcomings, I found it to be very enjoyable as a pastiche of memorable scenes rather than as a cohesive story.

I also appreciate the review of the technical specs of the disc... I'll probably pick it up to replace my SD-DVD.

Peter Jackson is on record as saying that he liked the film. It seems like Bakshi did his best with what little he had to work with.

I gotta say, I am quite dismayed by your negative review.
While you make your points, clearly, I find that you are way off base. The worst animated film ever? You must be kidding.

As a life-long fan of the Tolkien novels (I have read all of them, beyond LOTR), and a kid whose life was transformed by reading The Hobbit and then the trilogy, I eagerly gobbled up the Bakshi film the first time I encountered it on VHS in the late 80's. Being the only visual version of the novels in existence at that time, I could only but love seeing the characters and their quest come to life. At that time, it wasn't about critiquing cinema, but about seeing a cartoon based on novels that consumed my imagination.

Over a decade later, comes the Peter Jackson films. Despite being an adult, I was giddy at the thought of a live-action version, and the films certainly did not disappoint (though they are far from perfect renditions).

With that being said, the old Bakshi version disappeared into my childhood memories. Until this Blu-Ray was released.

I just watched it last night, and as it ended, my thought was:

"this is hands down the greatest animated film of all time".

Yes, I went there. And even despite the ending!

We all now know what hardships Bakshi went through to get this made, and in light of that, its not much a shocker that the ending leaves everything to be desired. There was obviously an intent for a sequel, that would handly the 2nd half of the trilogy, but it was never born and we were left with the Rankin Bass musical.... uggh.
For someone who just came from some long lost civilization and has never heard of Tolkien and watchs this....yes I'd understand if they hated the ending. For the rest of the world, I think we can deal with the abruptness, in light of the knowledge there was a sequel planned, and we actually now how the story ends. So my point is...the ending should be a moot point, and not a bullett to fire at Bakshi.

What's left is a fantastic film!

voice acting - perfect. As great as Ian McKellan is as Gandalf, I will always think of Bakshi's Gandalf, and that voice, as the best version. Aragorn is also tremendous in this, in fact, I wish Jackson's cast more resembled the Bakshi characters than who he actually hired to perform, with the exceptions of Cate Blanchet, Sean Astin, Rhys-Davis, and Elijah Wood. I prefer the Bakshi version of Elrond, Boromir, Legolas, the Wraiths, Saruman, Grimer... for me, they more closely represent what I imagined when reading the novels, than what Peter Jackson chose to portray.

music - a little repetitive, but a tremendously bombastic and epic score! Again that theme music to me represents the story more than the live action score.

story - barring the ending, I find that the screenwriter was able to take the essence of such a gargantuan tale and condense it. The key moments are all there.

directing - this is certainly Bakshi at his best. You say the movie lacks emotion and drama, I totally disagree. Scenes such as Helm's Deep, and the Mines of Moria are EXTREMELY well setup and the tension and excitement are very palpable. When the attack begins on Helm's Deep, there such a rush of excitment, which is lost in all the CGI of Jackson's version. And we dont have to see Legolas snowboard on his shield!

animation - wow you really hated this! and in contrast I found the artistry of this film to be unparalelled. Yes the rotoscoping looks rough at times, and that gives that world such a fantastical quality. The Black Riders truly look like they exist in a different dimension. The orcs are also very "unnatural".... I found the rotoscoping very effective to show how some creatures in Middle Earth, are...not quite natural. Also the fluidity of the motion of the fully animated characters is very entrancing, as are the facial expressions, which I find to be more emotive than anything Pixar can come up with.


It just seems to me that you have been so spoiled by all the high-tech CGI animation of the last decade, that you can no longer appreciated work done by true artists, who worked by hand, and breathed life into animation.

Like you said, half will hate, half will love.
Me personally, I HATED your review. Ralph Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece of animation, in the classical sense of the term - an apparently once-in-a-lifetime work of true animated artistry.

I'm sorry, but this movie is a true work of art. Your review is utter garbage.

I respect your opinion, dont get me wrong, you make your points, but ultimately, what you feel about the film is what I felt reading your article.