Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Old vs New - LoTR Animated vs Lord of the Rings - Nostalgia Critic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2016
- Which version can call itself the best? Originally aired on July 22, 2009.
Go to our Store for Awesome Stuff - theawesomestor...
Get some Nostalgia Critic T-Shirts here - shrsl.com/?~96c0
See more at our Site: channelawesome.com
Facebook: / channelawesome
Twitter: / channelawesome
Instagram: / channelawesome
Like Doug on Facebook: / 127127037353766
The ONLY Official UA-cam channel for the Nostalgia Critic and Channel Awesome.
New Nostalgia Critic episodes every Wednesday at 5PM CST.
New Awesome Comics episodes every Monday at 5PM CST.
New Real Thoughts On episodes every Thursday at 5PM CST.
New Movies in 5 Seconds Remastered episodes every Friday at 5PM CST.
Classic Nostalgia Critic episodes are uploaded after they are cleared. TV Show Vlogs are uploaded on an inconsistent schedule, so check the playlists. Same with Doug Reviews, Sibling Rivalry, and Bum Reviews.
Thanks for watching! If you're still reading this we regret to inform you that we have nothing else to add, but know that your dedication to the show more area of text will always be remembered in our hearts.
When Critic was talking about how Merry and Pippin in Jackson's film are overplayed, sure that's true, but I guess that was the point. To show them happy and free in the beginning, but you can see them change throughout the story. Even in the end of The Return of the King, they were more humble, strong, and fearless. It's really cool seeing their transformation.
Actually, when you read the book Merry and Pippin get a surprising amount of focus. Merry is the smartest of the four hobbits (despite being less book learned than Sam), and is the one who plans the escape from the Shire and gathers the needed supplies, plus being named a squire of Rohan (in fact he fits in extremely well). While Pippin gets focus as he comes to know the people of Minas Tirith.
Benedict Rogers exactly! i’ve always argued that the films “pippin-fied” merry; they make him immature and silly comic relief when in the books he’s intelligent and serious and is humorous because he’s snarky, not because he’s goofy like pippin is. and even pippin is nowhere near as stupid as the movies portray him - despite being the hobbit equivalent of a teenager, and definitely the most childish/childlike, he has moments of brilliant insight and problem-solving. i might be a bit biased because merry is my favourite character in the books, but merry and pippin’s depiction in the jackson movies has always got to me, despite how much i love those movies.
@@fungusmoon Eh, Merry was the more mature of the two, and the one who did a lot of the work. From knowing when to not look at that Palindir, to trying to rouse the Ents.
Kool McKool very very true, but he was still like a “more mature” version of pippin; they didn’t do enough to differentiate their characters - merry might be more mature, but he’s still a young, silly, hard-partying prankster. in the books he’s nearly 10 years older than pippin and it shows. i always say that merry acts like a jaded old man despite being the hobbit equivalent of about 23 - the scene in the prancing pony where he doesn’t want to go to the party downstairs and would rather sit quietly by the fire - and reminds the other hobbits to “mind their Ps and Qs - comes to mind. he likes a good pipe, but it’s in the same way your grandpa might like one rather than because he’s a goofy stoner
@@fungusmoon There's something to that I must admit.
I actually like Jackson's Aragorn better. I even thought that when I read the books. I kind of like Aragorn having to accept becoming king over time rather than being king like from the beginning
Aragorn is a character that works just fine in the book since it gives him a context that supports his attitude. But he'd be impossible to put on the screen now because he'd just come off as an arrogant prick. Difference between books and films!
I agree, Viggo as Aragorn, although a last minute decision, was one of the best casting jobs in any movie, ever.
Aragorn in the film wasn't struggling against being king, but rather with the fear that he would be as weak as his ancestor Isildur. He didn't reject kingship - he was just afraid he wasn't up to the task.
I could see Aragorn being played by any number of actors, but they did hit the nail squarely on the head when they decided on Viggo, indeed.
Aragorn was not someone to be liked in the book though. He was rather a bit of a smug fellow, who was quite sensitive about his titles and rights
Uh, who dropped Sam on his head and crossbred him with the Troll from a Troll in Central Park?
Ouch! Also, the troll's name is Stanley.
They have a bad troll a very bad troll
"I'm a bad troll.A very bad troll."
Ouch, that was brutal
“I’m a bad Hobbit. A very bad Hobbit.”
Sauron is monstrous in the Peter Jackson films because, in Tolkien's canon, he had lost the ability to take a fair form after the destruction of Numenor by Eru Iluvatar. Not to say that Bakshi's presentation of him was wrong, as showing him as a shadow is also a good representation of Sauron.
Also, Sauron was never a man, he was a corrupted Maiar spirit, Lieutenant of Morgoth.
One thing that jackson's version wins in hands down is the soundtrack
I really have to disagree. While epicness is always great, I personally find a note of whimsy and glee much better
+James A Clouder what if blind guardian wrote and did the soundtrack?
Brandon Wheeler Never heard of them before, and now just listening to one song, it'd be really cool to see an animated movie with their kind of music for a sound track
+James A Clouder look up nightfall on middle earth a playlist with 22 songs and read the description of the war of wrath
+James A Clouder it's basically morgoth appointing sauron as his servant and corrupting the lands into darkness and destroying all who defy him with ease...he's basically the main enemy of middle earth melkor named morgoth the dark Lord by the three who founded the lands and watched the first sunrise.
morgoth is so powerful that even when he's finally killed by the efforts of all middle earth his spirit watches over middle earth in the void and waits for the final battle when he will descend with the very same power and take middle earth as his own...
in defence of the "bombastic Sauron" from Jackson's version: when Numenor fell, Sauron's physical body, which -was- sneaky and worked by guile, was destroyed, and he was "never again able to take a form that seemed fair to man or elf".
After finding out about the Silmarillion, that's the first thing I thought when re-watching this. :D The issue is, though, that they still could have hid him or made him more of a mystery. That, and the armor he wore seems like it would fit his former master Morgoth/Melkor better. Honestly, I think that if Sauron were to be relegated to an "unfair" form, it wouldn't be an intimidating/inhuman form so much as would show how he's been corrupted overtime. Like, he'd be sickly, with some kind of unnatural coloring, he would lose hair and have it turn grey. Then the armor is put on to hide his unappealing look and make him appear more lordly. But it wouldn't be spiky armor, more like something uncanny looking, like let's say a face plate that had an actual fair face on it, but one that looked completely emotionless and had no eye-holes, just to give off an air of coldness/sociopathy and give the impression that he can see everything regardless.
Bottom line is, there were still ways they could have been more subtle about Sauron. Tolkien said that he stopped having the ability to take a fair form, not that he turned into a clown.
In a way, I've always thought that Mouth's design was better fitted for Sauron himself.
Sauron started a huge death cult devoted to Morgoth... After Morgoth was banished from reality until the end times. I think Sauron deciding to copy Morgoth's aesthetics if he couldn't be pretty does make a lot of sense
I guess that makes it more understandable
@@ischeele7203 The way I see it, Sauron copied Morgoth's aesthetics because he saw him as something of a father figure.
They dropped the S in Saruman to avoid people confusing him for Sauron.
They could have just called him Curunir.
they totally should have done that!Tolkein gives his characters a bunch of different names, why not use them!
@@Spacekitty666 it honestly comes down to the fact that the film makers didnt have the rights to the silmarillion which is also why in the hobbit trilogy, gandalf didnt remember the blue wizards names even though they do have names
I think the idea of Sauron was to be sneaky up until the point where the alliance against him formed. After that there wasn't really any point to working in the shadows because his enemies knew about the ring and his armies. So pretty much all cards were on the table anyway.
Yeah, I mean it's natural that a commander stay behind to plan strategies but if you really want to show how powerful it is you have to show his strength.
He was sneaky until his body was first destroyed in the sinking of Numenor, after which he could never again take a fair form, so portraying him as monstrous is the accurate way to go.
The whole point of the fellowship was they were a stealth mission. They even kept very strong good guys from going because they'd draw too much attention with their power
To see if your idea holds up, read each and every one of the over 10 lore books, also, the Simillarion and other works by Tolkien.
Souron was know as Avantar Lord of Gifts and was known by all the kings and rulers. He tricked Celebrimbor Into teaching him how to craft rings of power he then created the master ring. One ring to rule them all. Then went to the kings of men and dwarves gifting them the rings of power and deciving them. The nine kings of men were the easiest to corrupt and became the ring wraiths. the seven dwarven lords all became greedy and mistrusting but he could not corrupt their souls. So he was widely know it was only after the sinking of numenor when he had to change his tactics
to be fair, wood's portrayal is a bit more believable, hes a farmboy just started on this epic journey, seeing a group of ghostly horsemen rushing at you, you wouldn't be holding that sword like you were the greatest thing since sliced bread, you would be pissing your pants, so as much as the cartoon version was cool for fighting them, I'd give point to the trilogy version for being more human than hero
Perhaps believable in that right, but according to Tolkien, Frodo was a bit tougher and braver than how Jackson portrayed him. The cartoon was a bit more accurate to Frodo's personality. Maybe it was less believable, but it was closer to the book - Frodo was bold when he felt he had to be, because he was inspired by Bilbo.
Frodo didnt do anything in the books either(exagerating here). After he was stabbed, he did nothing, other than giving the reader an idea of what was going on.
Jackson had to portray a lot for each character. How their choices and actions changed them and those around them.
In the movie, we get to see Frodo changing from a carefree hobbit, to a hobbit reluctantly carrying a heavy burden, to being obsessed with his burden, to feeling relief and a certain "void" once it is all over.
It gives you character progression and a feeling that they have come from point A to point B.
If Frodo was courages and "active/aggressive" from the beginning, it is much harder to show the change once the ring starts influencing him.
Both film did what they had to do, to make it work with the timeframe they had.
In the Bakshi, you wouldnt have much time for developing each character, so they embody all traits more or less from the beginning(Frodo is pushing forward and is rather active, Aragon is both ranger and king in attitude etc.), and several of the supporting characters are cut off.
In the Jackson film, we get several personality stages for several characters(Frodo, Sam, Aragon, Pippin, Merry, Eowain, Gimli and Legolas, to name a few). How you view some of the characters changes too, as they change as characters(Merry and Pippin is comedic relief at first, but that changes at the end of the first movie and continues in the next).
How was the Jackson movie more believable on this point? From a storywriting perspective, Jackson's Frodo doesn't make any sense at all. Think about it: why was Frodo even allowed to leave Rivendell as the Ringbearer? Because he showed great courage and inner strength throughout his journey: at the Barrow-Downs, at Weathertop and at the Fords (to the point he used his last bit of strength to try to make a stand against all of the Nine). Without help, he would've failed at all those three points in the story. He also isn't portrayed as a warrior - which is also true for the Bakshi film.
But in the Jackson FotR, we don't see any of this inner strength at all. He was just luggage throughout the journey. The only attempt to show us was Elrond telling us - nothing more (what happened to the "show, don't tell" here?). We have a council of men we ought to think of as being wise, who allowed the most useless member of the party throughout the journey so far to continue being the Ringbearer, someone who's shown to be quite a coward too at Weathertop.
To add insult over injury, we have Sam at Weathertop, fighting bravely with the Nazgul, but was quickly discarded. This was what Frodo needed to do to show us, the viewers, that he could've been trusted to take the fate of the world on his shoulders. In the film, Sam should've been the one who should've been Ringbearer.
Furthermore, fendelphi, in the book Frodo did exactly the same things as he did in the Bakshi film: trying to defend himself against the Ringwraiths and riding to the Fords where he confronted the Ringwraiths. Also, how would it be harder to show the Rings influence? Would a scene like him yelling at Sam when Sam offered to carry the Ring for Frodo show less character development when he's courageous and has inner strength at the beginning of the story? Because to me, those two things are entirely different facets in terms of character development. And the Rings influence is something Jackson totally failed at too - while it's very subtle and consistent in the book, in the Jackson movies it's all over the place: one time you need to just see it to become crazy over it, and while otherwise you can be in it's presence without feeling a thing. And in terms of character development: Legolas was just there to show of and tell us what we saw on screen, Gimli was a clown, Aragorn changed with the worst piece of writing in the entire film (and there's plenty of horrible writing to compare it with)... Nah, Jackson just doesn't do it for me. He and his fellow screenwriters just don't have an eye for the bigger picture and just care for individual scenes and what looks cool.
an essay on the subject really wasn't necessary man
*****
Not entirely true. His "resillience" is something both him and Bilbo had in common. And it has nothing to do with courage, really(is Boromir not couragesm, and otherwise strongwilled?).
Probably the simple, goodhearted nature of hobbits(Gandalf assumed as much). Which was one of the reasons why he was allowed to be the Ring-bearer.
In the movie, we see his self-sacrifice(courage and compassion), when he suggest to take the ring to Mordor himself("though I do not know the way"), while the other races squabble among themselves(possibly influenced by the ring). He(as a hobbit) is also somewhat neutral, compared to elves, dwarves and men.
He also show some courage when he test both Galadriel and later Aragon.
He also stabbed the cavetroll in Balin's Tomb. Not to mention, he was almost jumping after Gandalf when the Balrog took him.
I dont see any "cowardice" at weathertop. If you look at how normal men behave in the presence of Nazgul, stumbling over a rock while walking backwards is quite a moderate reaction.
Sam is the odd one out, because he actually tries to fend them off(then again, he is a... simple person. And that is actually shown both in the book and both films. Though the Bakshi takes it one step further and makes him a bumbling fool).
Then again, most hobbits have little "true sense" of what dread is. They are so far removed from such things, that behaving irrationally(like trying to stand against a Wraith) isnt that strange. A kind of naive reaction.
However, Frodo knows(and so fears) the Ring Wraiths(partly because he knows what they are, partly due to the rings influence. That much is clear in Bree, where he is the only one really concerned about it all).
Would it have made him more courages if he had stepped up against them? Sure, but that would have ruined the transition from naive, to fearful and then to courages. If he had gone from naive to courages, without showing much fear or dread, the transition wouldnt be as impactful.
Or if he had constantly gone between fearful and courages(without exposition that a book gives), it would be very confusing.
So I really wouldnt call him a passive character in the movies. Sure, they have cut out some stuff of the film(s), but then again, they tried to make the Nazguls as intimidating as possible. It would kind of undermine their terror and dread, if 1 simple hobbit would try to stand up against them, without a lot of exposition of why and how.
It was only 20 minutes ago that we saw Frodo as a carefree hobbit, so he cant suddenly turn into a stalwart hero type(even in the book, it comes across as a fool's action and he is simply lucky to get out of it alive).
In the book, you have several pages to get his thoughts and reasons. You dont have that on the screen.
Also, consider this: What has more impact, a strong and courages character that falls and then eventually gets back up. Or a simple, carefree character, that find his courage despite falling constantly.
Sure, the first one would make for a dramatic epic(like the Odyssey or the Illiad), but that is not the story about Frodo, or Bilbo, for that matter. They are the little folk, and this is a tale about how even the smallest of things(even hobbits) can change the world.
As for the ring, it strength increases as it gets closer to Mordor, as Sauron grows in power, and the deeper a persons desires are(and it is like it has a mind of it's own, so it more or less chooses when and where).
Boromir is easily swayed, because his love for his country is so great and his need to defend it greater still. He sees the ring as a tool, and so is easily corrupted by the prospect of using it himself.
Aragon has no desire for the throne and his biggest desire(Arwen) can only be realized if the ring is destroyed(otherwise she will die).
Faramir is close to be corrupted(he was under quite a bit of pressure...), but his love for his brother and seeing for himself the corrupting influence of the ring, convinced him to let Frodo go.
Again, if we didnt see the "potential" of corruption in the film, it will be hard to have an idea what it is capable of. In the book, we get a lot of exposition through toughts and more dialogue, but there is no time for that in a movie(or it would be sooo boring).
Sure, the suspense of a "sublte corrupting power" might be cool, but if it doesnt show the end goal every now and then, you kind of forget that it is even there.
In other words, you have to emphasize the "burden" in somekind of visual way.
"Sauron have explosive diarrhea"
- Doug Walker, 2009.
"Aw, sword mean!"
Sauron go boom!
I fuckin lost it on that part 😂
"Sauron *SMASH!"*
Would be a landslide for the Jackson version if you included music. Howard Shore's soundtrack is amazing.
I disagree
It's perfect
NC needed to rewatch the start of Two Towers lol
@@DrDolan2000 Had us in the first half, not gonna lie...
He always did that back and forth win thing to make it seem like it was a contest. No one expects any outcome but jackson winning, as an adaption its near perfect.
Because its such a perfect adaption though, its boring as hell (just like the book). I'd rather watch the animated ones every time. Funny story, the end of the edition of the book that I read actually had a section ragging on people who called the book boring, so even way back when it came out it was received that way by some.
Its kind of a victim of its own success, maybe if I read it in a time before every fantasy was copying it, I would think of it better.
It´s almost like Saurons manipulative, good looking and fair physical form died with Numenor
It's almost like NC didn't even bother googling anything the movies left out that the books explained
I Scheele
Well He’s not looking at the book is he? He’s looking at the adaptations
@@sdm47 yes
Which means that part of Jacksons adaptation was better
Crimson Plague
What I meant was that he’s looking at the movies as they are on their own not as they relate to the books
Trunks Vegeta Briefs and that makes sauron human?
I'd say that Frodo is done better in the Jackson version actually. The way he's so vulnerable and helpless all the time represents just how draining and dangerous the ring is to people. Frodo's just about the kindest person ever and yet the ring is able to corrupt and weaken him which is a testament to it's merciless nature. If Frodo was more independent it would only take away from the ring's threat. The fact that Frodo can be around the ring so long goes to show his sheer willpower, bravery and kind nature. Not to mention it supports the story's theme of how a weak but kind person can be important.
8bitdiedie
I am disappointed that Doug completely poo-pooed the Fanken Bass version, as it had two good points, Sam played excellently by Rody MacDowell and the Witch King played by that guy who did all those hana Barbara villains.
That same Witch King that sounds like he thought he was auditioning for a medieval Starscream episode?
Lt. Voss
The same guy who played Fred Flinstone's boss. For the budget they had to work with, Franken Bass put together what I think of as an amazing clip show of the excellent film it could have been if they had had a proper budget. Everyone loves their version of the Hobbit, just think what they could have done with LOTR as a whole, and no montage songs.
Lt. Voss
I do love Sam's song "Less Can be More", that should be the Minarchist Anthem.
8bitdiedie I have to disagree I think making Frodo a combine both not two weak that that he can't defended him self but not two strong and that it down play the threat of the ring on Frodo
Aragorn played by Viggo Mortensen is the best thing happened to LOTR. What are you talking about?
Not for a moment did Mortensen come across as Strider, the grim Ranger whose looks were against him and was strangely grateful when Frodo trusted him. OTOH I thought he was rather good as the inspirational King in waiting. The best is of course Robert Stephens in the BBC audio set.
I agree the actor was perfect, but the character he was given had no backbone compared to the source materiel. From the start he went with the fellowship and intened to break off and go to minas tirith to take up the mantel of king. He didn't have to be forced to take responsibility, he willingly and enthusiastically took it. The only character Jackson got worse was Elrond. Bakshi's writing of the character wasn't just truer to the book, but also the what the character was meant to portray.
No, Ian McKellens Gandalf, Andy Serkis Gollum, Sean Astins Sam, Sean Beans Boromir and Christopher Lee’s Saruman are way better
Yeah, Viggo was just too mopey and male-modely for me. Really, when Sam says in Jackson's Fellowship "He's foul enough." I just have to imagine Aragorn smells like shit, because he's prettier than anyone else in the Fellowship, save Legolas if he's more your taste.
You're clearly confusing Sauron with his master, Morgoth. Morgoth is the true lord of Darkness. He is the mysterious one. Sauron is his cocky, powerhungry underling.
Tuszkki Well I mean Sauron did orchestrate the whole downfall of númenor, and was ever faithful to morgoth, in fact he used pretty much the same strategy with the númenoreons as morgoth did with the Valar, but instead of killing a king and running away with jewels, Sauron made other people act for him.
wait wait wait... you're saying Sauron isnt the Lord of Darkness of Middle-Earth, but merely a Prince? that's a bit hard to believe.
@@UltimateGamerCC
Melkor/ Morgoth Bauglir = Lucifer.
Mairon/ Sauron/ Gorthaur = Beelzebub.
@@haillobster7154 In Christian and perhaps Jewish myth, I think Lucifer and Beelzebub are the same. Beelzebub is just the Devil’s form as Lord of the Flies
Truth be told, it was the opposite way around: Morgoth was blatant and reckless in his evil, but Sauron (who showed a surprising amount of loyalty to Morgoth, even using Morgoth worship as a religion well into the Third Age) was so manipulative, he was able to escape punishment for his actions despite being captured and imprisoned multiple times. Morgoth was the bombastic sovereign, but Sauron was his loyal, quiet, scheming hatchet-man.
12:55 I think you misunderstood Sauron. He's not a human. He's literally a fallen angel. Or a lower-tier god, if you will. On the same rank as Saruman and Gandalf (although personally he is uniquely stronger, especially with the Ring of Power). And after he "died" he became something of a sentient force that corrupts everything in its reach and is trying to put itself back together into its physical form so it may once again try to conquer Middle Earth.
But yeah, he was never a "man," most certainly not a mortal. He transcends physical and metaphysical, and he is definitely nothing comparable to a man now.
If you only had the movies and the three books to go on, I’d see myself agreeing with Doug on this one. But we have so much lore to go through, it pretty much sets us on the level of douchedom that causes us to snort with every sentence
Thank you. I simply could not understand why Critic seemed to think that he was a sort of elven prince or something. He's _Sauron._ He's the Shadow in the East. He's over-the-top because he can be. He's literally darkness incarnate.
So basically Middle-Earth's version of Satan?
@paytoncntrll7 Actually they are the same Tier. Morgoth is an Ainur, one of the "gods" that Illuvitar created. Gandalf, Saroman, and the rest of the wizards, and Sauron, are all Maia, which are like the Ainur, but of lesser degree, ie. their helpers.
Aren’t gods like humans though?
Interestingly enough, Christopher Lee was originally cast as Gandalf, an McKellen as Saruman. Lee is a huge Tolkien buff though, and suggested the switch.
Actually they never intended for him to play Gandalf, it was Tolkien that had given him the word that he should play the character in film. Jackson says they had an awkward 30 minutes at auditions when Lee was there where they realised he was there to audition for Gandalf, but they already had McKellen and wanted him for Saruman.
www.ew.com/article/2015/12/28/peter-jackson-remembers-christopher-lee
Perfect cast change. I have to admit, I would have loved to hear him shout "You shall not pass."
But would the film suffer or be better if they switch roles?
amir alexis balsamo I'm not even sure I'm capable of imagining it. We've seen Sir Christopher be charming and light (his early scenes in The Wicker Man), and Sir Ian be intimidating as Magneto, but I'm still having a hard time picturing them trading these roles. I think it would definitely have worked, but in a completely different and equally amazing way.
I think Lee was only comfortable when playing bad guys
Gollum was done so great in the Peter Jackson films, andy cercis didn't get an Oscar so I flipped my table
One inaccuracy in your video: The Animated Lord of the Rings was actually financially successful. It made 30 million against a 4 million budget. In fact, it was the highest grossing non Disney Animated film at the time.
Christopher Lee was a badass in real life too! He was a James Bond-esque British spy in ww2, was present during France’s last public execution, starred as Count Dooku and Saruman, and at 90 years old, became the oldest heavy metal rock artist in history!
Chuck Norris can suck it!
Three cheers for British actors who killed real people! Hip hip hooray
He was also the inspiration for James Bond. Ian Fleming was his step-cousin. This guy was non-human!
DO OLD VS NEW HOBBIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YAAAAAASSSSS
he did
I actually prefer the cartoon tbh...
little too short, but understandably so. New is WAY too long. It's LOTR long!!!
+RedDragonForce2 The difference between Lotr and the Hobbit with their lengths is that the Hobbit is so much more padded with filler and needlessly stretched action scenes than Lotr is...
WHAT?
No music comparisons??
...Never mind.... guess Jackson's takes the cake.
Although Bakshi's version does have some good tracks. My favorite is Mithrandir. It's sung by a choir of children and it sounds angelic, which is fitting for Elves
I disagree that Frodo wasn't tough enough in the live-action. He was too tough in the Bakshi version. Wraiths are supposed to be terrifying demons. Men are supposed to be terrified of wraiths, and hobbits even moreso. When Sam gets ballsy in the Return of the King its supposed to be a really big deal, because Hobbits are known for being timid. So I strongly disagree that a brave Frodo is to Bakshi's credit.
The way Frodo acted at those points should have rendered the Council at Rivendel to the conclusion Frodo wasn't fit to carry the fate of the world on his shoulders (just like Faramir should've done when Frodo basically offered the Ring to a Nazgul before his very eyes). The Bakshi version doesn't make Frodo tough, just brave enough to do something in the face of fear when it's needed - a characteristic normal people _can_ have. This courage is exactly what made the Council allow him as the Ring-bearer in the book, and in the Bakshi movie. It made sense within the structure and context of the story itself, made it coherent.
In the Jackson films, Sam wasn't brave just in RotK, he was basically doing what Frodo did in the Bakshi films: clumsily trying to fight against the Witch-King, which showed his courage from the very beginning. If the Council wasn't absolutely braindead in the Jackson film, it would've been Sam and not Frodo who became the Ring-bearer.
In their defense, Frodo did offer to take the ring to Mordor :D
I agree. Frodo is a Hobbit, and as such an unconventional hero to carry a franchise. We see a lot of unlikely heroes, who come from humble origins like Frodo, but then they rise to the occasion and stab all the bad guys and become super cool, and Frodo doesn't do that.
He's strong and brave in his own, quieter way, his best attributes are his resilience against the ring (which people always underestimate when they complain about him being "whiny") and his empathy even for a creature like Gollum.
When people complain that Frodo is just a damsel in distress and Sam is the only hero, I always think of the other Hobbits back in Hobbiton. They admire Merry, Pippin and even Sam, because they have cool swords and fight bad guys with them, but they're just too simple and don't care enough to see Frodo as much more than a weirdo. And that hurts Sam, because Sam knows exactly what Frodo went through and how much he accomplished, and he hates seeing that he doesn't get any recognition for it at home.
And I hate seeing that he doesn't get any recognition for it from the movie viewers either.
Frodo was much tougher in the books than the Jackson film. He was far too passive in the movie.
I think making Frodo seem more gentle in the film was a huge improvement.
1. It gave Sam more a reason to protect Frodo, because Frodo wasn't physically strong enough to defend himself early on, and he eventually became physically weak because I the ring.
2. It gave him a better excuse to be a ring bearer. He was gentle and pure, and him the best choice for being the choose one. He was willing to give the way away plenty of times, showing the ring did not have a hold on him yet.
3. Take Sam, the tough one. He only had the ring on for a day. In the film, he almost didn't have the ability to give the ring back to Frodo.
4. If Frodo had any character traits of being a tough guy like in the animated film, the ring would use it against him. Like Arathorn or Bauremeir. If he had any sense of a fighting sprit, he would have fallen alot earlier than he did.
5. Wearing the ring for so long and getting stabbed by a Vorgol blade would make you weaker in so many ways that the movie made clearer.
RIP Christopher Lee
And now Ian Holm.
And John Hurt.
At least we still have Sir Ian McKellen. I’d hate to think about the day he too sadly passes on.
10:33 Years later, in his review of Bakshi’s version, they answered that question. Supposedly the producers thought it sounded too similar to another character’s name in the movie so they just last-minute changed the name by removing the S.
I'm gonna have to disagree with NC on Frodo dropping his sword being a detriment. In the books, the Nazgul were described as so terrifying that nobody save for the bravest of people would even be willing to fight them. And not because they are physically terrifying, even though they are, but there is just something about them that all of the sudden makes them look like the most terrifying creatures you would ever see and all the joy in your life is gone. Now, Frodo's just a normal Hobbit with no combat experience, so he would naturally succumb to the fear, so him dropping his sword made sense to me. Sam was only able to fight because his determination to protect Frodo was stronger than anything else at the time, Same with Eowyn and her determination to protect a dying Theodan.
Frodo failed his Will saving throw against Fear.
Take 3 corruption points
But in the books, Frodo actually attacked the black riders! He cutted a black piece of cloth, if I recall.
+Thomaz Leite Yep you are right! After falling to his knees. He threw a bit of a blind swing at the rider from the floor and brought back a little piece of clothing history as a souvenir
But to be fair first time Merry came in to contact with one they found him passed out after going a bit catatonic saying he felt like he was in ice water and couldn't do anything even escape so Frodo did fairly well considering
Ian Holm's Bilbo deserves a mention, surely, as one of the virtues of Jackson's version.
Meh
Absolutely. I almost feel bad not noticing what a fantastic actor he was before. And he played Frodo in the BBC radio adaptation, which is the reason, why he was cast.
Wow, I'm afraid I can't disagree more with aragorn. He has always been one of my favourite pars of the movies, and I think that he is very kingly and carries this honor and pride but just without needing to say it out loud
plus that speech he gave was pretty damn epic
I like how Aragorn's kingship was gradually taking shape over the course of three films, instead of just already making him all proud to be kingly from the get go, inadvertently making Aragorn sounding like an arrogant prick with a god-like complex than a dangerous-looking guy at first glance, but turning out to be a nice person with the potential to do the right thing for all people's of Middle Earth.
In the movies he's humble, and relatable.
Yeah, exactly I don’t think critic knew what he was talking about in this case. Because the idea of Aragorn was a man who turned away from being a king because of who is ancestor wise. He was afraid of taking on that title because he was the heir to a man who fell to the power of the one ring. His ark was all about going back to that and accepting who you are not running away from it. If he’s just kingly from the get-go, it kind of eliminates the lesson.
"Oh hurrrraaaaaayy!"
Dude I looked at your comment the exact moment that he said that in the video
Shut up!
'He's sick and he needs a rest!'
HELP I'M DROWNING!!
That scene always made me laugh as a kid XD!
more like
oh, huraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy
@6:33
Well, yeah... but he rejected the title of King. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a ranger. He'd be King of Gondor and the 'lovely' steward wouldn't be as important of a character... all things considered.
In Jackson's version, he sells the Ranger because that's all he wanted to be: a Ranger, without any royal responsibilities. He didn't make this journey to become King of Gondor, but he realized that he HAD to become the King he was meant to be in order to finish the mission. It wasn't his first choice, but he accepted it all the same when the time came.
Very true. I like the humble attitude Mortensen portrays. Makes him so much likeable
i'm just shocked about how THE ANIMATION ISN'T TOTAL SHIT! i've been used to seeing half assed animation so much these days, that i'm impressed that the 70's gave birth to a nicely animated movie that wasn't disney!
Ralph Bakshi is a very good animator
But the animation was shit though, it was super inconsistent and everybody was drawn in different styles, have you seen the scene in the prancing pony?
JockMan JuiceBox in order to deal with the low budget they had to use rotoscoping for the animation. Hence the inconsistency.
@@michaelnally2841 Yeah, and besides, different styles gave different vibes given the scenes. It allowed for creativity to flourish
@@jockmanjuicebox4595 Duno what you mean. That animation and artwork looks PERFECTLY FINE to me. Looks professionally done by people with talent. I see NO major fault with it at all.
bashki's will never live up to the Jackson trilogy. but they both have a special place in my heart. I like to have little marathons where I watch them all back to back.
Ho Le Fuk It’s BAKSHI!!!!
Best line in lotr: "look mr frodo, lambas bread, and wait. More, lambas bread"
i love the way Aragorn is portrayed in the older version. now that looks like a ranger that has lived off the land all his life.
RIP John Hurt. The Bakshi version was the first LOTR film I saw on VHS as a kid before seeing the Jackson version, and Aragorn was my favorite character alongside Gandalf in that film. Long live the king. :(
May the Lord of Gondor rest in peace
He deserved an honorary Academy Award.
My heart has joined the Thousand, for my friend stopped running today. Goodbye Hazel-Rah, may you rest peacefully in heaven, proudly smiling at your friends and family.
Honestly I think the lord of darkness would be someone who’s willing to strike from the shadows and keep himself hidden, but also willing to be a tank that is loud, bombastic and in your face in certain situations where it’s necessary.
Someone cunning enough to set his enemies against each other and manipulate events from the shadows but powerful enough to take a direct approach when necessary
Great video. I've never seen an intelligent comparison of the two versions before. Both have merits. I feel the Balkshi version did well with limited resources and despite some very obvious flaws, contains some amazing sequences.
Archvaldor's Warcraft Hacks watch another balkski film called wizards it's a good way to get started with his films... just... don't watch cool world
Makes a diarrhea joke about sauron.... sssssuch an intelligent review?? Ur an idiot
Did you see his Cool World episode? Paramount ruined it.
So Total war took some ideas from the animated LOTR when programming their AI
xD
So Ron is edging cool imagine not seeing anything that's how it feels like imagine wants me to see a action scene may you can't see anything well that's that movie
Angel Vizcarrindo you want to try that again?
I assume they never take cover?
-Gets mad at the mispronunciation of Saruman
-Keeps mispronouncing Bakshi
While I disagree with some of NC's opinions on the characters in regards to how they're depicted, I definitely agree with his thoughts on Gimli in the scene comparison when he learns of Balin's death. Having him walk off in a solemn silence is indeed more powerful, but also more dignified.
it seems more in line with Gimli's character and preserves his image as a proud warrior as opposed to him breaking down immediately. I'm not saying you can't have an otherwise hardened character have a moment of vulnerability, only that I think the subdued approach worked better.
Am I the only one that wants to see an Old vs New of The Hobbit?
Old vs New Smaug
That is gonna be kinda hard, both do have strengths and weaknesses. For instance, I liked how they tried to hide the full look for Smaug in An Unexpected Journey, and I find the more scaly kind of dragon more appealing...
But I'm not Doug, so my opinion has no significance whatsoever.
+Picky Peeves Personally, I think that's what makes for a good Old vs. New, it's much more interesting when both of them have enough pros and cons to make for a close contest.
Dee Twenty Absolutely.
Since he did LotR, he should.
What no soundtrack comparison?
I know right?
Jackson wins, THERE
Martin Latour It is indeed, but I still think that Bakshi's deserves a listen
"There is a whip.... *WHIP CRACK* There's a way!"
haha yeah no, Jackson wins.
+MrRedGreenBlue1 That the other guy, Rackinbasse or something
In my opinion, Elijah Wood Frodo nails it better, i think that the fact that he was more vulnerable was the entire point, he's a Hobbit who has never be in a fight and from nowhere he have to go to Mordor and face forces allot bigger than he.
"Jackson may think that he knows more about hobbits than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him." - Tolkien's input on the matter, based on one of his outbursts.
“I should resent perversion of the characters … even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery” - Real quote by Tolkien.
But seriously, why do people even defend the decission to make Frodo nothing more than luggage? Jackson's Frodo has done nothing - absolutely nothing - that made him even worthy to be considered for a moment as Ringbearer. Just send the Ring directly to Sauron, saves you the trouble to stay secret...
Oh wait, I forgot. Sending Sauron the Ring and negotiate the positions of some realms or people was the plan all along! That's why Faramir let Frodo go to Mordor _after seeing the damn spineless fool offering the Ring to a Nazgul!_ Think Faramir wanted to shoot Sam instead of that flying beast.
@@iarwain8584 Frodo wasn't luggage... he carried the freaking ring. The problem is that the tremendous strength this requires is internal and not external, which is harder to depict on film. So some people see him not killing orks and stuff and go "ha look at that useless hobbit" when in fact he is the only one who could have done it. Not alone obviously, but that was never the point, and needing Sam, needing the help of fellowship is not a weakness. They're a team.
And like... Frodo wasn't a fighter in the books either. When they come back to the shire, Merry and Pippin are the cool, celebrated ones who defeat the bad guys, while Frodo only insists on not being uselessly violent and gets very little admiration by his people.
Sam notices this, and it makes him sad, because he knows how much Frodo accomplished even if it's hard to see and understand for others. The movies were really accurate to this whole dynamic in my opinion, and you're kind of missing the point on Frodo as a character.
@@baguettegott3409 Yes, much of the war was fought internally in Frodo’s case, but you are focussing too much on one aspect of the war Frodo fought. After all, part of his mission was to keep the Ring out of the hands of the Enemy. Book Frodo had three instances _before Rivendel_ where he had proven his courage, bravery and ability to overcome his fear. At the Barrow-Downs, at Weathertop where he actually tried to - clumsily - fight off the Witch-King himself, and at the Fords of Bruinen where he prepared to make his last stance. The point is, you definitely need to be able to handle pressure on a mission to save the whole world.
Meanwhile, movie Frodo never showed such courage. He was literally a mule designed to carry the Ring to Mordor. Needing help is not a weakness indeed. But needing Sam to stop you from giving the Ring to a Nazgul definitely is. It basically turns Sam into a babysitter who shouldn't let Frodo out of his sight for even a single moment.
Hell, if Faramir had any working braincells in his head, there would be no doubt in his mind that Frodo should be send to Minas Tirith as soon as possible. Or better, take the Ring from him then and there. Because let’s face it, a person that isn’t even able to stay at his hiding place with the most powerful weapon in the world when there is a Nazgul around, isn’t fit to go to Minas Morgul where 8 more of those creatures live. And Gollum can’t be trusted either, so Sam would’ve had way too much to handle.
And seeing how Frodo completely failed to do anything at all before Rivendel, he shouldn’t even be considered to be the Ringbearer on the Quest. Do you know who did prove himself in a positive light? Sam. At least he tried to fight at Weathertop.
Your example from the Scouring is not a very good one. That was a changed Frodo, who had become a pacifist because of all the hardships he had to endure. You might recall he cried Elbereth when facing the Witch-King at Weathertop, or him stabbing an Orc in the foot that tried to breach the door of the Chamber of Mazarbul. He wasn’t a skilled warrior like Aragorn or Boromir, but he was not a coward that would drop his sword when faced with danger. And of course Frodo isn’t a character that goes berserk when he sees an enemy. But he would fight till the end when faced in situation with no alternative sollutions.
@@iarwain8584 But I mean, are you saying Sam should have carried the ring to mordor? Cause he wouldn't have, and he couldn't have. Sam would have gone home from Rivendel, he went on for Frodo and not for the ring. And forcing someone to be the ringbearer who isn't 100% ready to do whatever it takes to get the job done... that would never have worked.
Though now that this is an actual discussion I should mention that I am by no means an expert, I've read the books for the first time earlier this month and only watched the first movie in its entirety. This is just my (uneducated) opinion, I know some people are like... Tolkien scholars and shit. But I'm guessing you aren't one of those either.
@@baguettegott3409 The thing that I was trying to say is that Sam, in the movie, was actually doing the things Frodo did in the book prior to Rivendel. As a last line of defence, Sam would’ve eased my mind far more that movie Frodo who won’t be able to protect the Ring at all if he was alone. Hell, he wouldn’t even try to protect it. I am implying that movie Frodo wasn’t ready to do it, at all. At two occasions during the films they should’ve said to him “nope, I’m definitely not letting you go to Mordor.”
I see. Will provude the quotes I was talkng about in my last post then.
_At that moment Frodo threw himself forward on the ground, and he heard himself crying aloud: O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! At the same time he struck at the feet of his enemy. A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder. Even as he swooned he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand. With a last effort Frodo, dropping his sword, slipped the Ring from his finger and closed his right hand tight upon it._ - FotR I.11
_Suddenly, and to his own surprise, Frodo felt a hot wrath blaze up in his heart. 'The Shire!' he cried, and springing beside Boromir, he stooped, and stabbed with Sting at the hideous foot. There was a bellow, and the foot jerked back, nearly wrenching Sting from Frodo's arm. Black drops dripped from the blade and smoked on the floor. Boromir hurled himself against the door and slammed it again._ - FotR II.5
No, I’m no Tolkien scholar that writes studies about his work. But I am way too invested in the wold he created. But the fact I’m not a Tolkien scholar doesn’t make my point any less valueable. The arguments used to proof my point are the only things that give it value. It’s just undeniable that book and movie Frodo are two entirely different characters.
So, if Ralph Bakshi becomes Ralph Bashki, then shouldn't Peter Jackson become Peter Jasckon?
you should make a old vs new on nostalgic critic
The closest we have is his Christmas with the Cranks review.
Ha, people didn't seem very fond of that one!
And so they shouldn't. That entire review was a giant middle finger to the people who made him a success.
Jay Sherman I don't see it that way
Anime. exe old wins
I'm gonna call you out on dissing Aragorn. for one he is a great motivational leader who is much more relatable as a person. how he treats others is inspiring and resonates wisdom. that isn't too say the bakshi one is bad I just don't think it's better or necessarily worse either.
Yes, i much prefer the film version. Hes more human and relatable.
The Baskshi version of Aragorn is also know by his other name 'Kills Orcs with malice' , going on his appearance.. :D
Yes, I too liked the Jackson one better as well, he had much more depth and we saw his internal conflict about his family, duty and destiny. He was also more human and relatable, along with his love for Arwen always being with him
But if you had to choose between Viggo Mortensen and John Hurt... let's face it... you're gonna choose John Hurt.
@@BioGoji-zm5ph I am not.
I mean, what else would Sauron wear if he's going into battle? Would you expect him to fight in his bathrobes?
Yes
The “speaking without pauses” bit is so odd to me, ’cause I only ever watch the extended editions, and there the dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf isn’t rushed/cut at all. Seeing as LotR is this grand adventure that involves a whole world, I think they deserve to only be viewed as the extended versions, with nothing cut or rushed for runtime.
The animated Aragon looks like an oompah loompa
Ethan A badass oompa loompa.
No, the animated Samwise is the Oompa Loompa. LOL
Nah he is clearly Spirit from GIJOE
More like medieval Javier Bardem
@The 4th Komodo i was thinking that Graham Greene modeled for animated Aragorn.
Lol what does the world have against Tom Bombadil?
I think it is a good thing he was left out of the movies. I would have hated to see him get screwed up.
He was too awesome to include, if they had included him nobody would've given a shit about the rest of the movie because he wasn't in it.
He sucks. He absolutely sucks. He is easily my least favourite thing in the entire trilogy.
When Tom Bambodil appears in the books the plot just... stops. Dead in its tracks.
The portion of the book with him in it is dull and just goes on about how great he is, and look! He is immune to the rings power and wow he is so great!
The only good thing to come out of Tom Bambodils section in my opinion were the Barrow Wights, which were legitimately cool and creepy. Apart from that he was a waste of time.
well yeah tom bombadil isn't really part of the lord of the rings after all.
Tom...Oh my god...Tom Bombadil is a Big Lipped Alligator Moment...
There really is no contest--Peter Jacksons is the best
Bakshi, not Bashki. The man's an animation legend.
Doug fixed his mistake in the second top 11 beep (sorry don't want to swear) ups and corrected himself friend
But but but... I LOVED that "where there's a whip" song! lol
That's Rankin-Bass.
Damn it now I got that old song in my head
i love it too
I liked the Rankin Bass ROTK, and I enjoyed their version of The Hobbit quite a lot. It's poorly regarded, but I thought the watercolor backgrounds were very nicely done, I liked the character designs (the hobbits were MUCH more like the book's description), and I thought the voice casting was superb. Orson Bean was a fine Bilbo, Hans Conried a memorable Thorin, Brother Theodore an exceptional Gollum, Otto Preminger a distinctive Thranduil, Richard Boone a VERY menacing Smaug, and John Huston iconic as Gandalf. To be so condensed, I thought it did a great job capturing the charm of the book.
Same here. The best thing about the RB Return of the King. Their version of the Hobbit was pretty decent, though still not great.
As far a Sauron goes, I agree that it is more sinister when Sauron is quiet and plots in the shadows. Interestingly, almost directly before Fellowship, Sauron was quiet and plotted secretly, especially when he tricked the elves into forging the Rings of Power. Truthfully when he was corrupted by the Lord of Darkness before him, he became a beast in many ways. By the time of the movies he was under the belief his power was so great that he didn't need to be secretive anymore which is why he was more loud and in your face.
I really DID want to see Jackson vs Rankin/Bass' The Return of the King! Well, where there's a UA-cam comment, there's a way! *wha-cha!*
We don’t wanna review this trash today, but the lord of the fans says na na na. We’re gonna watch all day all day all day, where there’s a UA-cam comment there’s a way.
Does Doug realize the Peter took heavy inspiration from Ralph's movie right even the newer hobbit trilogy Smaug quotes almost all the lines from the 70's movie no joke
(I know this comment is 3 years old)
Most of Smaug's lines in both movies are lifted straight from the book.
Also, Bakshi had nothing to do with the animated Hobbit or Return of the King movies. Those were done by Rankin/Bass. The fact that they came out around the same time as Bakshi's film in the proper order is a complete coincidence.
It's almost like the 70s movie quotes all the lines almost exactly from the book! Of course Jackson's version is going to use the same likes as Bakshi's .. they both quote the book!
@@Lullaby454 There are scenes in the Jackson movie that Peter Jackson took from the Bakshi movie that are not in the book.
The first encounter with the Black Rider was described differently in the book but Peter took the scene that Bakshi did. And the attack on the inn is not described in the book. Again Jackson took the scene from the Bakshi film.
Bak-shee. Bak-shee. Not Bash-kee. Not Bash-kshee. Bak-shee.
correcting a pronunciation mistake from 7 years ago. that's a good use of time.
He corrected himself on that in his 2nd Fuck-up video.
Dreganastra00 is that what gets you hot?
Omg i can't fucking stand dyslexic cunts.
He's probably just getting Bakshi back for that "Aruman" nonsense.
Maybe they pronounced it "Aruman" because Saruman sounds too similar to Sauron.
Zuriel 883 when I read the book, I thought they were the same person for that reason
Only stupid people would think that.
No not true at all: I thought Saruman was Sauron too when I watched the movies: Just him without his armor for some reason but at that time I was a child!
Yeah, I had this misconception when watching the movie for the first time.
never did i ever misconstrue them for the same person. not when i was 5, and not now
I know that this is an unpopular opinion but I actually really liked the hobbit movies (not the third as much), but I would love to see and old vs new with Peter Jackson hobbit and the Raken Bass one.
So do I friend especially the cast for the hobbit and the fight scenes jacksons are legends:)
I didn't exactly "really like" the hobbit movies, but considered them "OK and still better than most Hollywood stuff today", especially considering the troubled production the movies went through
I don't know how anyone can even compare the live action to the animated. I watched the animated after a long time the other day and it just made me appreciate the live action more, and I cannot stop analysing both and seeing how Jackson makes it so much better.
I get the point about how the Jackson version can be more dramatic while the animated quites down and creates atmosphere, but the animation is so horrible it's clear that this is just a 1900 cartoon. The art is a separate thing, it's picturesque and really sets a fantasy fairy tale tone, and the black riders were really well done, but the movement of the face and how they speak just didn't look human at all. It was like a crappy puppet show and ruined my enjoyment. On the other hand, the live action thowever immerses you through stellar acting. They are just more human because of their acting, the bad animation ruins it all for the animated version.
Also, take for example the gandalf death scene. In the Jackson version it is so emotional, the music is sad and the screams of frodo are just drowned out by the music to show us the pain on their faces. In the animated movie the characters hardly give a big enough reaction to the death of Gandalf, only when aragon tells froodo that the elves call gandalf minthrindir, did we really get a chance to lament his death, and even in the Jackson films that was done better because the voice of the elves was more beautiful and melancholic and when they ask legolas what they are singing about Gandalf, he just says, "I have not the heart to tell you, " it's sad. The animated film gives no sad initial reaction to gandalf's death and since gandalf never even felt much human because of the horrible animation, I didn't feel bad for his death in the animated, whereas in the live action I was brought to tears. You might say that they were just stunned by gandalf's death and thus didn't say much, but the way it was executed it just seemed like they didn't care about gandalf.
Similarly the scene in the Jackson film where they discuss in riverdell what to do with the ring is iconic, every character shares their thoughts and its just glorious, and there was some beautiful atmosphere in that scene, the music came and went in soft rhythms and we could hear soft breeze and the birds chirping. In the animated the narrator just said, "they discussed long hours about the ring." The background for the movie when they have the council for the ring is gorgeous, while in the animated version shows the council around a plain white table on gray floor. The movie shows the stark beauty of riverdell, the cgi is just great.
The scene in the Peter Jackson version where bilbo sees the ring at elrond's house and gets demonic was creepy af and showed what the ring did to someone, but in the animated version bilbo's face falls victim to bad animation and looks hilariously dumb.
Also the aragon in the cartoon was just heroic and that's it. In the movie he was badass when needed to but soft and gentle like when he kisses Boromir on the forehead upon boromir's death. Man, Boromir's death in the live action is visceral, the way his face is drained of all colour and turns bloodless white as he is dying, and how he speaks through the agony of dying to make aragon promise that he would protect gondor. Its beautiful and really gives Boromir a redemption arc and shows how he is like when not in presence of the ring. Also aragorn is more hesitant to take the Throne which creates more drama, and his love story with arwin was sweet. The animated doesn't have that.
This is just one of the myriad examples I can give
So.. now that you did Lord of the rings will you do the Hobbit too? The old animated Hobbit vs the new one?
The old animated one? You mean the 1966 one? I would prefer if he did it with the new animated Hobbit. Even the CGI Hobbit is better than the 1966 version. Except for comedy purposes.
Yup I did mean that one. Ooh Maybe he can compare the 1966 to the new animated one.
Akumaschild
Wait, you know the 1966 one? Awesome. Thought you would mean the "new" animated one from 1977.
+MasterBombadillo all we have of nightfall on middle earth besides a books is an album by blind guardian 1hour 17 minutes, 22 songs telling the story through songs hitting key moments and transitioning. Even the voice of Morgoth is chilling...
Brandon Wheeler
And the relevance of Blind Guardian for this conversation is?
Nostalgia Critic should make a book vs movie series.
HEY! I AM MAKING THAT!!
And bandgeek8208
+Jacob B 8408
I think Cinefix does that too, it's called What's the difference
check out lost in adaptation
Why does the animation look so strange? The black riders look like actual actors, just drawn over with a black and red crayon, and the way the characters move seems so..... Uncanny......
Something to add, Rotoscoping is done even today with Blue and Green screen technology. Rotoscoping tended to be cheaper despite being more time consuming to get action sequences as realistic as possible back in the day of Bakshi if I recall correctly.
Merritt Animation They did it with A Scanner Darkly.
Oh, that explains it. How neat! I've never seen the Bakshi films before so forgive me if I sound ignorant but after watching NC's video maybe I ought to give them a try
This animation always creeps me out.
Yeah I didn't like these films as a kid because I thought with how ugly some of the animation is it must've been some homemade thing 😂😂 half of the characters look like old potatoes lol
My favourite lord of the rings scene
Smeagle: But Master Baggins is our friend!
Gollum: YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS!
*me bursting into laughter*
Jackson's sauron is much better
You mean Sauron the Evil Lighthouse? Nope.
Well it´s not really fair since the sneaky and deciving side of Sauron was before the movies. The only Reason Sauron is a big flashy over the top bad guy is because his Days as the Deceiver are long over. Everyone already knows he´s an asshole at that point there´s no need to try and hide anything.
Valar Morghulis Valar Dohaeris
That side is still there, although in a different way. If you see how he deceived both Saruman and Denethor, or how he kept quiet for thousands of years to regain his physical form at Mirkwood while planning his next moves - setting the stage in both the East and the South to gather more armies. No, Sauron was still a plotter and a deceiver, the only thing that changed was that he was bound to an terrible form that he couldn't use to infiltrate his enemies ranks.
but by the time of the movies he is going full warlord. The deception is still their but it takes a back seat as he already but his plans in place.
The Animated feels much more like the book. The dark power loomed over the atmosphere in the books, with no need to every see whatever he was (but he was supposed to be a black and burned necromancer)
omg his Gollum impersonation is PERFECTION
Old vs New Peter Pan? Disney and 2003 live-action version?
There was a 2003 live action version?
+@@teamcybr8375 The one where Peter wears leaves as clothes
What about including the original silent version from the 1920s?
Both versions are good
13:07 Yes you're right. Sauron used to be like that, going under the name Annatar. Yet he lost his ability to change form after the destruction of an island called Numenore in the second age.
I think Frodo dropping his sword, says it all.
The book-Frodo was taught in swordfighting and adventuring by Bilbo, who was a seasoned adventurer; and Frodo had already defeated a barrow-wight-- and ATTACKED the Witch-king, and almost KILLED him-- that is BAD-ASS! Frodo also called on Elbereth, which made the Nazgul fear him even more,
And why did the Witch-king stab Frodo in the SHOULDER? In the cartoon, Frodo stabs him first, but the Witch-king blocks it, and so it makes sense that he would miss. But in the live-action movie, he has a clear shot at Frodo, but choose to stab him in the SHOULDER, just like in the old westerns where a hero who got hit was only "winged." even at point-blank range.
No he wasn't trained in sword fighting at all, and Bilbo wasn't either (using a sword a few times in his live doesn't make him a pro at sword fighting). Also, Frodo didn't defeat a Barrow-Wight, he just cut off its hand with a lucky stroke, he would've been dead if he didn't call Bombadil. Furthermore Frodo didn't "nearly kill" the Witch-King either, his sword didn't even go through the cloaks of his enemy, and didn't cause a wound - let alone one that could be lethal. Don't make things up. The way Frodo acted in the book wasn't to show his sword skills - which where pretty much non-existent - but to show his courage and inner strength.
The latter critique is true, makes no sense to stab him in the shoulder in the films.
Frodo stabbed the Witch King, and hurt him since it's a Westernesse make, but the Witch Kind is pretty powerful. It hurt, but stabbing him destroyed the weapon. He wasn't trained in sword use, play sparring and the like, but no actual combat training. He got lucky by flailing to hurt the Barrow-Wight, and Bombadil saved his ass. He stabs him in the shoulder because it's close to the heart so the shard will go faster, but not enough to kill him. They want to subjugate him, turn him into a Wight rather than kill him.
Him dropping the sword in the movie version makes sense. The Nazgul have shown to exude a kind of aura of fear around them that's hard to resist. And Frodo's more susceptible to it since he's got the ring and the ring's helping them. As it goes on, hearing a Nazgul hurts him. A Nazgul screeches overhead and he's in pain and unable to move.
Bakshi's otherworldly backgrounds here & in 'Wizards' really set such an awesome mood & tone to his flicks... I LOVE the Bakshi stuff!
The Black Riders in the animated version was nightmare fuel for me when I was younger
I’m watching this for the first time as an adult and I can only imagine how terrified you must’ve been at night 😂
I've always preferred the Baskhi version because of both Frodo and Aragorn. While Aragorn felt to me like what the Dúnedain are meant to be, both the descendants of kings and protectors of the people, Baskhi's Frodo managed to combine being vulnerable with being noble, jolly, and brave, which makes his descent into helplessness as the ring starts to wear on him that bit more noble (which also causes Baskhi's Samwise to become closer to the book, which is an interesting change if not a good one). The film certainly required another half hour to an hour of runtime just to add in more dialogue, but even with that limitation I feel it's the better version, and it manages to include some scenes left out of the Peter Jackson version that add character development (such as the fellowship arguing over whether to go via Moria or the Gap of Rohan).
I strongly disagree with his opinion on Jackson's Aragorn!! What i love about Jackson's Aragorn is he doesn't WANT to be king at first!!! It's further explored in the Extended Editions, but in the actual movies, Aragorn says to Arwen, "Same blood flows through my vains, and... Same weakness." That quote alone tells us that Aragorn is fully aware of Isildur's failure, and he wants nothing to do with it due to failing like Isildur. When Aragorn takes Anduril, it's a crucial part in his character that he is ready to take back his throne of Gondor, and by The Return of the King comes along it is much more rewarding to see him finally move towards becoming the King of Gondor!!! In my opinion, THAT is much more interesting then a guy who's already ready to take the throne.
And once he's king, he has a beautiful beard
Lotr drinking game: drink every time Frodo looks like he's jizzing himself
probably get alcohol poisoning XD
Animated lotr drinking game: drink every time you see Aragorn's underwear
is there a OLD vs NEW *Hobbit* yet?
Rankin Bass version tells the important parts of the story in one sitting and doesn't feel rushed. Rankin Bass wins.
Christopher lee: **Gets Tolkien's blessing to play gandalf** **Is cast as saruman.**
Honestly him playing Saruman fits him better. Do you really thing the guy who played Dracula can pull off a convincing Gandalf without coming off as unintentionally scary?
I wanna ram a pencil into my ears every time he says "Bashki"....
Once it comes out....Old Vs New The BFG. That would be perfect. :)
...I wasn't even aware that there was ONE BFG, let alone enough for an OvN.
Wait... I know there was a movie based on "The Witches," but was there really a "BFG" movie? And more importantly, is there going to be one coming out soon? I'd heard rumors but never any confirmation.
@Eilidh Macleod I was just coming to make this comment. :D
@Nathan Deaton There was a direct-to-television BFG movie animated by Cosgrove Hall released in 1989. The 2016 live-action/CGI film by Disney is releasing at the end of June/beginning of July this year.
Mattsterweb O.O
Just saw the trailer. I need this movie in my brain.
+Mattsterweb The animated version is probably my favourite adaptation of a Roald Dahl book.
Nothing Kingly in Jackson’s Aragorn? How about the fact that he lead the men into a final stand at Helm’s Deep while Theodin had completely given up? Or the fact that he can resist the ring while his ancestor could not, proving that he NEEDS to be in charge. Viggo brought so much depth
How I feel about characters:
Frodo: Sometimes his feebleness in Jackson's take was frustrating, but I liked that he visibly struggled along the way. In both the book and movie, especially towards the end, he was barely hanging on. He took on an unbelievably heavy burden and felt the consequences. And his weakness gave him an opportunity to learn and grow and made his relationship to other characters more meaningful. But I guess if Sam is a half-wit he kind of has to be completely self-reliant.
Sam: Why did Bakshi hate Sam? The book made it clear that he was integral to Frodo's journey and amazing in his own right. The Jackson movie did a fantastic job portraying this and further developed their friendship. Plus, he was the only one not tempted by The Ring. That takes a pretty extraordinary purity and strength of character. Yes, he could be a bit comedic at times, but that was part of his charm. However, when push came to shove he knew when to get serious. How does making him into a complete idiot do Tolkien justice?
Merry and Pippin: Jackson definitely simplified them. Maybe a bit too much. However, I actually liked it in the context of that film. With so much seriousness and darkness and a cast teeming with larger-than-life characters it was refreshing to have a couple of mischievous goofballs with hearts of gold. And Pippin's part as Soldier of Gondor was one of the best performances of the film. His initial innocence gave him a different perspective and made his maturity by the end of the film more emotionally rewarding.
Gandalf: He does not throw temper tantrums. Need I go on?
Aragorn: The Jackson version is very close to the book and I love it. Yes, Aragorn is technically royalty. However, his family lost the throne generations ago and the substitutes have no intention of stepping aside. Aragorn has, until now, been a ranger and nothing else. He is also a good, humble man who deeply cares for other people. I would be surprised if he did not have doubts and insecurities. To be the king he has to defeat Sauron and his army and kick Denethor out. Does this sound like an easy task to you? I don't think he saw it that way. Aragorn had no idea if he would make it out alive, much less be successful. To me, his weaknesses make him complex and lovable while his strengths, especially those he struggles to find, make him inspirational.
Golemn: Jackson's version is near perfect.
Saruman: Jackson version = perfect casting.
Black Riders: Jackson actually stayed pretty faithful to the book in both regular vision and ring vision. Extremely creepy.
Sauron: Jackson's version follows the original mythology in that he had a physical form (black armor in movie) but lost it and is now a shadow-like being (also seen in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings). The Eye of Sauron is completely Jackson and not the perfect solution to wanting to give him a larger role in the plot. This took away the book's masterful subtlety in how it handled his particular contribution to the plot and his personality after that point. The film probably would have benefitted from a more Bakshi-like approach post-backstory. BTW, Sauron was never a man. He is a divinely-created being who got kicked out of the divine realm by the supreme divine being. Closer to the Christian version of Satan if you want a comparison. Reference The Silmarillion. Worth reading for any Tolkien fan.
Other notes:
I can't blame Bashki too much for Eowyn. In the book and Jackson films she does not become important until Return of the King. Quite a shame. She is one of the best characters in the whole thing and the only strong female character.
To those saying what about Arwen: In the book she more or less shows up 2-3 times to be Aragorn's lover. Not much personality or plot significance. Jackson did a lot better, but he had to do a lot to get there, This included adding several scenes, which sometimes feel forced. She is a decent character with some personality, but her main role is still being Aragorn's lover.
Favorite scenes from Jackson films:
Arwen's reflection on mortality: The one problem that will not be solved by the time the final credits roll.
The preparation scenes from Helm's deep: Effectively showed how desperate, beaten down and unprepared they were. This would also Aragorn's first real test of leadership, so the build-up made his success more satisfying.
The flag flying off the pole as Eowyn looks out: Beautiful, tragic, highly symbolic. Should be the textbook example of how to build suspense and use symbolism to create emotional impact.
Boromir's death: Very rushed in the book. I liked how they made him fight one orc instead of a whole band and made his actual death scene longer. Orlando Bloom's performance was also flawless.
The Ents defeating Saruman: Epic.
Faramir riding to his death by Denethor's command: The score, symbolic imagery, camerawork and situation in general made it incredibly moving.
I like that he gave us a feeling of closure at the end of the movie while showing that nothing would ever be the same. Middle Earth is saved, but there are still a lot of problems/unresolved points. The elves are dying, Arwen is immortal, Sauron is still out there somewhere, the hero (Frodo) actually wasn't a hero, a lot of people are dead, displaced and/or impoverished, Saruman is out there (and tries to invade The Shire in the book), no one outside their circle knows what the hobbits did and most of the main characters have suffered for their journey. Some of them are even broken. The book and film are bittersweet, but that is what makes the last 9 hours worth it. Tolkein's work is too beautiful, complex and epic to end otherwise.
IMO, the Bakshi version can easily put you to sleep.
Morgil Ive never seen the animated, but lemme tell ya, The Third Jackson LoTR movie ALWAYS makes me pass out. Around the giant spider. Its just so god damn boring. Theres no tension because you know they wont kill tgem off
Besides, no one even gets hurt. Theres no fucking stakes. No one loses a limb, an eye, no one even gets a fucking scar
@@theopinatedpterodactyl6559 "No one gets hurt." Boromir died, Faramir came close to dying multiple times, Eowyn was wounded (stabbing a dark ring wraith takes a lot out of a person,) Theoden died, and Merry was left out on the battlefield until Pippin showed up. Merry DID get a scar on his forehead from the Orcs, BTW, but it's not mentioned much in the movie. Frodo nearly died multiple times, and he only survived thanks to both Sam _and_ Smeagol.
The should make an new Old vs New about something they've made an Old vs New about before, and then make an Old vs New about the two Old vs News
What the hell........
Bro, I heard you like Old vs New, so we are gonna make an Old vs New of an Old vs New.
+N00b 2100omg truly meta
Inception
What?
I don't like it when people bash on Elijah Wood for his performance because they say he should be badass or something. No, no he shouldn't. Not everyone is supposed to be a badass and Frodo represents innocence and youth.
Why was Gandalf's "WAT" repeated at 5:58? It didn't actually happen in the animation
I watched the bakshi version first as a little kid and it's always been one of my favorite movies
Ditto. That movie helped shape my love of the fantasy genre.
I liked it too and wished they'd allowed him to do the finale. Although Boromir the Viking and Legolas the... whatever threw me off a lot.
The animated Lord of the Rings for some reason always reminded me of The Secret of Nimh. Maybe it was their color, atmosphere, or certain aspects of their respective animation styles? Either way, they're both great films in their own right. Just imagine if LotR was done with anthropomorphic mice, rats, and other animals representing the characters. Hmm...
another good point forThe Jackson version of lord of the rings trillogy, is because it have one of the best soundtrack of the movie history composed by Howard Shore 😄😄😄😄😄
I feel like Jackson should win for just Sam alone. Sam is such an important character to the story. While Frodo is the one carrying the burden, Sam is making sure Frodo never falters.
munromister777
Agreed. The old version gives absolutely NO CREDIT to Samwise the Brave.
Classic Nostalgia Critic, it's good to see the old episodes back again.
but sauron was loud bombastic and in your face, he strode confidently among the frontlines of the battlefeild smiting fools because noone could stand to him, he was one of the most powerful figure in the lotr universe only really surpassed by the valar and the old ones, he took on the collective might of the people of middle earth and for all intents beat them like a drum, the elves never recovered from their losses and slipped into a slow decline and the kingdoms of man were gutted and left a shadow of their former selves
No he wasn't, especially not if it comes to physical strength. Of course he was strong, but he wouldn't be able to beat Eonwe in a physical fight for example, and that was a Maia. He was bested many times in fights. He couldn't beat Huan, while a wolf Morgoth raised could. He could only battle Elendil and Gil-Galad to a draw (all three were defeated in that battle, and Sauron not because of Isildur). Sauron was powerful, but while he could hold his own in a fight, this was not what made him the most powerful being in Middle-Earth at the time of LotR.
I'm watching this the day after the US 2016 election and his comment about inexperienced presidents stings.
Trump set the bar so low, its unbelievable how high it used to be in the past.
HFF, well hopefully we can recover from that. It's sort of mind-boggling how some people defend the way he acts and talks as 'standing up for himself'. Trump in his current position has an enormous amount of power and openly threatening individual people with barely a sliver of comparable power (if that) for speaking their mind is not what I would call 'standing up for himself'.
Holy cow. I was expecting that to be a Trump criticism. It was an Obama Criticism.
Woah.
This was originally uploaded on his website years before 2016.
@@HermaphroGynandro Trump was a nobody on politics that time
@Guilherme Marinho Exactly.
Lol, true, that's what people thought back then. Then Trump came, and said "hold my beer"
I came back to this video right after his review of Lord of The Rings animated movie.
I like how he made a political joke saying Obama didn't have enough political experience to be made president and now we have Trump being an actual serious candidate.... god help us all.
trump is Abe Lincoln compared to Obama mate
ikr i'm omw to canada if she is elected
It will set a new record: shortest time in office before an assassination attempt.
Still better than Clinton:(
+Nathan Deaton >inb4 vanned by Secret Service.
Obama actually did have political experience. "He previously served as a U.S. senator from Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. ... Turning to elective politics, he represented the 13th district from 1997 until 2004 in the Illinois Senate, when he ran for the U.S. Senate."
"I don't even know why it turns all red, it just looks really cool"
Say that again, slowly.
Mystery solved.
What's really funny is that I remember this coming out, I was 9 at the time. So, now at the age of 17 it's weird to see Nostalgia Critic actually bringing nostalgia towards my childhood.
I know I'm late, but I forgot to comment the other time I saw this vid.
My main problem in comparing the Bakshi version to Jackson's film(s) is that Jackson had two entire movies to flesh out his characters and story, whereas Bakshi was trying to condense two books into one movie (the thought at the time was that no one would ever want to see films based on the books, as fantasy was nowhere near as big of a hit as it is today. That's also why it was released as an animated 'kids' film), and so didn't have a lot of time to work with. Frankly, I thought he did an amazing job with what he had to work with, although it's been a very long time since I've seen that film (and an equally long time since I've seen the Rankin/Bass version of The Return of the King, which I enjoyed as a kid).
I think that if Bakshi had the same amount of time as Jackson, and was able to make two full length films instead of one short one, then it would've been a better comparison. Although I get what Doug was doing here, as there really isn't anything else worth comparing the Jackson version to, so we're kinda stuck with it.
I, for one, would love to see a feature length animated version of all three books, done in Bakshi's style. Don't modernize it, don't 'make it trendy', just be faithful to the books and the style of the old one. Or hell, have Miyazaki do the films. He has a way of drawing out emotions in his films, and he can really give you a feel for the characters in a short amount of time.
They could make a great animated series in a studio Ghibli style. And I'm saying series just to allow more character growth and world building
Personally I find the bakshi version a lot how Peter Jackson sees it. A strong,bold ambitious film that succeeds in bringing Tolkien's to the screen. It's not just lord of the rings fans that are split on the film,it's also art fans too. Bakshis art has been praised by people who like something abstract and strange. While art fans who like something like the Mona Lisa hates it. It deserves a fair place in the evolution of fantasy. If Peter Jackson turns something strange into a masterpiece maybe we can too. It's nice knowing that Doug likes this.
I really liked the ringwraiths in the bakshi version as opposed to the jackson version. They genuinely creeped me out, whereas the jackson ones were just armored guys in dark robes who have lung cancer from all the pipeweed they smoked