Ralph Bakshi versus Peter Jackson movies

[periantari]

Thanks to speedyhobbit for linking this in her journal first! These videos made my day! :D

Bakshi versus Peter Jackson's movies =)

Part I

Click to view

Biggest points in my humble opinion

Comments

Re: Thanks for this post!

[periantari]

I do'nt really agree that i would punch Frolijah because i think there were some things he did really well like expressions and acting in general --if characteristics were the only factor, then maybe i would judge differently but since Frolijah did a great job in general, that still gave me many reasons for loving him and being fangirly as well. IN the point of characteristics, it's important but not the deciding factor for my love for Movie!Frodo. Did i want a stronger Frodo? yes, but it is'nt the only thing to make me like/dislike him and in my book, i still love movie Frodo despite the shortcomings.

In fanfiction, i don't agree that he could be portrayed as "damsel in distress" so therefore i tend to read more of the stronger portrayals of him. I didn't think Frolijah looked "girly" but i guess that is your point of view.

The problem with this line of defense is that it can be used to justify almost every change made in the films--f.ex. throwing away The Choices of Master Samwise for a cheap bit of suspense (see? It's more dramatic!), throwing Aragorn off a cliff, and the Go Home Debacle. Maybe it would have worked in the case of Aragorn if Viggo Mortensen had been able to pull off the whole Innate Kingliness thing, but he wasn't. Almost everyone I know had only one reaction to his appearance in the coronation scene: HE WASHED HIS HAIR! Well, if clean hair makes a king...
I think movies work better with suspense so that is why PJ and crew changed it to Frodo running in alone. I don't agree with it but then how else are you going to put in the Howard Shore Shelob Lair's intense score?
I agree that i hated the Aragorn cliff thing and the Sam Go Home bit-- those points i will always cringe at when i rewatch the movies.
I love your bit about Aragorn's hair! hahahaha!

Because they delayed Aragorn's character development, all such a film would be is a montage of Aragorn running around on a horse lopping off orc heads while U2's "But I stiiiiiilll haven't fooooouuund what I'm looking for" plays in the background.
hahahaha good point! I really liked that you stuck in U2's song. :D

I think i do have the BBC editions! i will listen to them again to refresh my memory. :)

Re: Thanks for this post!

[labourslamp]

Well, I think (and this is probably the case for every actor and every human being) that part of Elijah Wood's effectiveness in the LotR films was his ability to use his looks to the advantage of the character he was trying to portray--namely to elicit sympathy through distant angsty stares and slow *tear* moments. I don't think a plainer-looking actor would have been able to use the same tactics and elicit quite so much sympathy. I probably should not have gone so far as to talk about face-punching, but I'm still smarting from the last episodes of Doctor Who, in which another character that I used to love completely destroyed all my sympathy by engaging in too much self-pitying whining. In other words, good or bad, the physical appearance of the character is tied so heavily into his characterization that whenever someone else gives him that physical appearance, no matter how strong they write him, it's still going to rub off on characterization. That's what I find annoying.

And yes, I do realize that saying Frolijah looks like a girl is a bit of a value judgment on my part and everyone else's mileage does vary. But I do know that in sentimentalist novels the weaker-willed characters tended to get blue eyes (they were also portrayed very sympathetically... they just tended not to be proactive characters). The feisty ones usually had dark eyes that flashed with ire!

I just want to see how much of this is actually indicative of a wider trend in fiction and how much of it is my own personal biases. There is (or was, at least) a lot of fic out there that reduces Frodo's power of agency to almost nothing. I never read that kind of fic, but other better tales end up being guilty by association in my mind.

Movies do work better with suspense, but you have to give the audience credit for having a brain (did anyone really think for a moment that the Quest was doomed because Frodo no longer had the Ring at Cirith Ungol?). You also have to see what the relative cost of a suspense-inducing change is. Clever editing like the featherbed attack at the Prancing Pony added suspense, but didn't really take anything away. Having Frodo enter the caves alone drove a rift in one of the greatest friendships in all literature, and you really can't argue that what happened (and I'm sorry, Frodo's noises of fright really do sound like whimpers in that scene) in the films is much more suspenseful than Frodo and Sam flipping out about the giant spider together. Frodo running ahead recklessly, Sam seeing the sword glow and hiding the light, seeing Shelob coming and just about to warn him but then getting attacked by Gollum... how is that unsuspenseful? Trying to make the audience think that orcs had the Ring when Sam had it was not worth taking away Sam's Best Monologue, which Sean Astin could have pulled off beautifully (and if they had done a score to that... ahhh...)

Anyway, I do realize I'm more preaching to the choir on this one. I understand the justifications of the filmmakers but I don't think that they hold water in a number of these cases.

I've had that U2 song stuck in my head for days now... but for some reason it really does seem to fit pre-LotR movie!Aragorn in my mind.