Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 2:53:52 GMT
It really sounds like TV would have been a more suitable venue for the Potter series, then. Not necessarily whole 20 episode hour episode seasons/series, but if each book was given a couple of two-hour episodes, they would probably have been fine. In other words, a TV series done the British way. "You lop off enough of that stuff when adapting an 800-page book and you're left with people racing through what almost feels like an outline of major plot points." This is basically what happened with the Ralph Bakshi animated Lord of the Rings. He wanted to make a fully animated trilogy, but Warner Bros got cold feet made him cut it down to just two films (before just calling the whole thing off with one film, leaving Rankin-Bass to finish it with an hour and a half animated musical). The man was forced to stuff the entirety of Fellowship of the Ring AND The Two Towers into 2 hours and 18 minutes. You can imagine how... "well", that went over. Yeah, I've seen all the animated films. The Bakshi is particularly half-baked. I think The Hobbit is actually pretty good. Yet, somehow, he has insane fans insisting its the better adaptation of LotR. For some reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 13:03:38 GMT
Yeah, I've seen all the animated films. The Bakshi is particularly half-baked. I think The Hobbit is actually pretty good. Yet, somehow, he has insane fans insisting its the better adaptation of LotR. For some reason. Different opinions....
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 8, 2017 13:31:08 GMT
Honestly, as average as I find the Potter book series to be, I'd be open to a televised version of those if it was properly done. The films, for the most part, did not do them much justice. Starting at around Film 3, they still technically followed the outline of the books they were supposed to be adapting, but without a lot of the more interesting story elements, character development, and even proper context for some of the scenes. If nothing else, a properly paced Harry Potter TV series could actually justify having a supporting cast of wonderful British actors as the faculty of Hogwarts, unlike the films where I would watch then and ask, "Why in the name of God did they bother hiring Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, (and so on and so forth until you've milked the whole British acting community dry) if they just go through the same motions in every movie! I think Alan Rickman's face froze into that permanent sneer at this point!"I like the movies from a fan standpoint, but from exactly three onward, they sort of overtly presume that you've read the books and therefore don't explain or (like you said) afford "proper context" to a lot of what's happening. This by definition makes them sort of failed cinematic adaptations. I realize it's a series of films, but if you started anywhere after two you wouldn't fully understand what the hell was going on, I don't think. My biggest disappointment was they stuck with the same director for the last four movies. One thing that I really enjoyed about the Harry Potter movies was how each director would put their spin on their particular movie. I felt this worked well with the Harry Potter franchise as it's already filled with magical whimsy. To this day, I wish Terry Gilliam, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson had been able to adapt the final three books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 19:27:17 GMT
Yet, somehow, he has insane fans insisting its the better adaptation of LotR. For some reason. Different opinions.... It's more that they're fans of Ralph Bakshi than Tolkien. I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favor of his LotR adaptation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 19:29:54 GMT
It's more that they're fans of Ralph Bakshi than Tolkien. I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favor of his LotR adaptation. Well, it's hard to hear a convincing argument for something you don't agree with. Lol. I can see where they're coming from when they argue certain elements of the adaptation. There are a few things I think they did better in the Bakshi version. However, as a whole, for me, it's not even close.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 19:33:14 GMT
It's more that they're fans of Ralph Bakshi than Tolkien. I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favor of his LotR adaptation. Well, it's hard to hear a convincing argument for something you don't agree with. Lol. I can see where they're coming from when they argue certain elements of the adaptation. There are a few things I think they did better in the Bakshi version. However, as a whole, for me, it's not even close. Yes, I will give Bakshi that he tried to be word for word with the limited time he was given, but at the same time, I think the film suffered for it. If I knew I was going to have to smash Fellowship and Two Towers into one film, I'd be starring at LotR with a pair of scissors and a look of grim determination, because something's gotta give under those conditions.
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on May 10, 2017 6:16:33 GMT
Well, it's hard to hear a convincing argument for something you don't agree with. Lol. I can see where they're coming from when they argue certain elements of the adaptation. There are a few things I think they did better in the Bakshi version. However, as a whole, for me, it's not even close. Yes, I will give Bakshi that he tried to be word for word with the limited time he was given, This is the only advantage of the Bakshi version imo, the dialogue from the book and bits like Aragorn/Strider having a broken sword. In the beginning of that movie this can be effective. But over time the weaknesses of the Bakshi version become more clear; the wrong characterization of Sam as a fool, poor art design with the animation, Saruman becoming Aruman, the Balrog having a lion head, balls of fire coming from Saruman in the Helms Deep battle. The weaknesses pile up until all the majesty and scope of Tolkien's world is lost in just a low budget, poorly done film. Imo at least, BB ;-)
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 10, 2017 14:13:54 GMT
I would've loved to have seen in the 80's "Jim Henson Presents: The Lord of the Rings."
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 10, 2017 14:18:16 GMT
I would've loved to have seen in the 80's "Jim Henson Presents: The Lord of the Rings." That would've been fucking cool. Especially if made in the early 80s rather than late.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 10, 2017 16:10:49 GMT
Yeah. Definitely early 80's.
It'd've been great to see. The Hobbits could be regular puppets. The dwarves can be little people in costume like Hoggle from Labyrinth. The humans of course played by humans. The orcs can be a combination depending. And of course, the bigger creatures like The Balrog and Cave troll would be giant animatronic puppets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 18:05:57 GMT
This is the only advantage of the Bakshi version imo, the dialogue from the book and bits like Aragorn/Strider having a broken sword. In the beginning of that movie this can be effective. But over time the weaknesses of the Bakshi version become more clear; the wrong characterization of Sam as a fool, poor art design with the animation, Saruman becoming Aruman, the Balrog having a lion head, balls of fire coming from Saruman in the Helms Deep battle. The weaknesses pile up until all the majesty and scope of Tolkien's world is lost in just a low budget, poorly done film. Imo at least, BB ;-) Exactly. But, to some people, the change characterization of Aragorn in Jackson's version is unforgiveable, and they'll favor the Bakshi version for that alone. It all depends on what bothers you, what matters to you, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 19:13:28 GMT
This is the only advantage of the Bakshi version imo, the dialogue from the book and bits like Aragorn/Strider having a broken sword. In the beginning of that movie this can be effective. But over time the weaknesses of the Bakshi version become more clear; the wrong characterization of Sam as a fool, poor art design with the animation, Saruman becoming Aruman, the Balrog having a lion head, balls of fire coming from Saruman in the Helms Deep battle. The weaknesses pile up until all the majesty and scope of Tolkien's world is lost in just a low budget, poorly done film. Imo at least, BB ;-) Exactly. But, to some people, the change characterization of Aragorn in Jackson's version is unforgiveable, and they'll favor the Bakshi version for that alone. It all depends on what bothers you, what matters to you, etc. Is Baskhi's interpretation of Aragorn really more accurate than Jackson's? I never saw the more kingly side of Aragorn or eve got the sense this man was raised by elves in the Bakshi film. Granted, they also went too heavy on the ranger aspects of Aragorn in the Jackson versions, but at least he had some degree of elegance and eloquence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 19:21:10 GMT
Is Baskhi's interpretation of Aragorn really more accurate than Jackson's? I never saw the more kingly side of Aragorn or eve got the sense this man was raised by elves in the Bakshi film. Granted, they also went too heavy on the ranger aspects of Aragorn in the Jackson versions, but at least he had some degree of elegance and eloquence. In my example, it's the addition of Aragorn doubting himself and initially not wanting to take up his title that upsets some people. He symbolically lays down Narsil and outright says he does not want this responsibility. Aragorn is more true to the source material in this regard when it comes to the Bakshi adaptation. That said, I never really liked the Bakshi version, but I never saw it until I was older. People I know who saw it as kids seem to enjoy it more. Perhaps nostalgia helps with that version.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 19:27:01 GMT
Is Baskhi's interpretation of Aragorn really more accurate than Jackson's? I never saw the more kingly side of Aragorn or eve got the sense this man was raised by elves in the Bakshi film. Granted, they also went too heavy on the ranger aspects of Aragorn in the Jackson versions, but at least he had some degree of elegance and eloquence. In my example, it's the addition of Aragorn doubting himself and initially not wanting to take up his title that upsets some people. He symbolically lays down Narsil and outright says he does not want this responsibility. Aragorn is more true to the source material in this regard when it comes to the Bakshi adaptation. That said, I never really liked the Bakshi version, but I never saw it until I was older. People I know who saw it as kids seem to enjoy it more. Perhaps nostalgia helps with that version. Funnily enough, I've always seen flashes of self-doubt even in the book Aragorn, but of course I guess that could just be my interpretation. I admit they over-played it in the Jackson version, but honestly, I can't see how someone in Aragorn's position wouldn't be at least a little apprehensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 19:35:29 GMT
In my example, it's the addition of Aragorn doubting himself and initially not wanting to take up his title that upsets some people. He symbolically lays down Narsil and outright says he does not want this responsibility. Aragorn is more true to the source material in this regard when it comes to the Bakshi adaptation. That said, I never really liked the Bakshi version, but I never saw it until I was older. People I know who saw it as kids seem to enjoy it more. Perhaps nostalgia helps with that version. Funnily enough, I've always seen flashes of self-doubt even in the book Aragorn, but of course I guess that could just be my interpretation. I admit they over-played it in the Jackson version, but honestly, I can't see how someone in Aragorn's position wouldn't be at least a little apprehensive. It's one of the changes I actually liked. It's when Jackson went overboard and also did it with Farimir and Treebeard that I started getting annoyed with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 19:50:04 GMT
Funnily enough, I've always seen flashes of self-doubt even in the book Aragorn, but of course I guess that could just be my interpretation. I admit they over-played it in the Jackson version, but honestly, I can't see how someone in Aragorn's position wouldn't be at least a little apprehensive. It's one of the changes I actually liked. It's when Jackson went overboard and also did it with Farimir and Treebeard that I started getting annoyed with it. Agreed. The solution to finding a healthy middle ground between Book!Treebeard and Movie!Treebeard is easy. Just make the other Ents stubborn about getting involved, but not Treebeard, himself. Faramir... I'm sure there is a healthy middle ground between the film and book versions of him, but its harder to figure out. I dunno, maybe the orcs can find the caves they were hiding out in, attack, and force Gondorians and rangers to retreat. That could force Frodo and Sam to accompany Faramir to Isgiliath for their own protection.
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on May 11, 2017 19:18:47 GMT
This is the only advantage of the Bakshi version imo, the dialogue from the book and bits like Aragorn/Strider having a broken sword. In the beginning of that movie this can be effective. But over time the weaknesses of the Bakshi version become more clear; the wrong characterization of Sam as a fool, poor art design with the animation, Saruman becoming Aruman, the Balrog having a lion head, balls of fire coming from Saruman in the Helms Deep battle. The weaknesses pile up until all the majesty and scope of Tolkien's world is lost in just a low budget, poorly done film. Imo at least, BB ;-) Exactly. But, to some people, the change characterization of Aragorn in Jackson's version is unforgiveable, and they'll favor the Bakshi version for that alone. It all depends on what bothers you, what matters to you, etc. I agree what matters to a person depends on the individual. - To me what is important is whether the depiction of Aragorn in Jackson's movie fits what happens in the Appendix A about Aragorn and Arwen in The Lord of the Rings. I understand that often in the discussions I had on IMDb, people who complained about this relationship had only read the novel in the book and not the Appendices. * What does "Appendix A, Annals the Kings and Rulers: The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" say about this? Imo it is pretty close to what is shown in the movie. Imo at least BB ;-)
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 7, 2018 8:01:56 GMT
Classic post from the original IMDb.
|
|