Ripping off the Nostalgia Critic, Ralph Bakshi vs. Peter Jackson

Interestedly enough, these guys did this first...

Now as all of you know, I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan, and still consider the series the best books I have ever read. I know that people mocking LOTRS is becoming a bit of a fad now, but honestly, in terms of productively, I don’t think anybody can beat JRR in either fantasy, or in my personal option, just enjoyable novels. I’ll conclude that books like Dubliners by James Joyce might be better written, but in terms of both personal enjoyment and quality of world building, JRR takes the cake. Anyways, as people who know me from the OOTS forum, I also have a beef with Peter Jackson. I don’t like him very much as a director, and with the exception of Weta Workshop, nothing he did as a director really impressed me, so much as the truly astounding cast he was able to get his hands on. I don’t dislike him, I’m just not impressed by anything he does. When it comes to the LOTRS films he did, as movies I thought they were pretty enjoyable and fun, and still rate them pretty highly, through his total inability to edit….anything was a pain, but that was saved by some truly astounding prop work as I will touch later. Judging the movies as adaptations, I was less impressed, I felt Fellowship was great, but the other two were disappointments. To sum this up without writing a full article, I’ve never believed the LOTRS was unfilmable ever, and I don’t begrudge changes that made sense, like the Barrow Wights, Tom, and Old man Willow. It was changes that didn’t make sense that annoyed me, or were superficial, like the Elves, Gimli being a comic relief, or Denathor being a 2 dimensional whack job. Now, before I saw these movies I had seen the Ralph Bakshi animated film, and I rather liked that as a child. Anyways, I decided to rip off the Nostalgia Critic’s idea http://www.thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/9754-lotr and compare the two versions. Now I’m using a different standard than the Critic in terms of comparing the films. First, I’d just how something worked out as per loyalty to the book, and how something worked out better as an actual film. So, ripping of other people’s ideas ahoy. Again, we aren’t counting the Third film, because Ralph’s version didn’t get that far.

First off, the characters, starting with the Fellowship. Now I like Elijah Wood, and not just because he has my first name. He is very expressive, and I how he is able to convey his emotions without over acting, also being one of the few child actors who I actually respect. And his eyes are perfect for Frodo. But the critic was right in that the animated version was far stronger and much tougher than Frodo. And to an extent that’s more true to the book, movie Frodo is far more frail and less tough than his cartoon counterpart, who actually fights back against the ring wraiths and the trolls, as well as seeming far more upper class than Frodo who seems a lot like a kid. So in terms of closer to the book animated wins. But that being said, as a movie, I think I enjoyed Elijah Wood better. Despite being weaker and less tough, I didn’t really feel like calling him a pansy throughout the film every time he collapses, I more felt like I was him, surrounded by a bunch of super humans, and up against crazy monsters, and knowing that I’m three feet talking using a short sword. I mean, dropping the sword against giant hooded monsters may seem silly, but honestly, I could see myself doing that. And even when he fails dismally again and again to stand up for himself in the first movie, he was able to convey the emotion that he was trying. In the scene where the giant troll is attacking with the goblins and everybody is running around fighting stuff, and he just kinda hangs around before vainly attacking it, I really felt like he was trying to over come his fear of “OMG, a bunch of monstrous freaks are attacking me”, and to try to help, which he does eventually. And I really felt he was more unnerved by the whole journey itself, he was just nervous, out of his element, and, due to the ring, slowly going paranoid. And I thought the confrontation with Boromir was actually really emotionally well done, as two of my favorite actors, Sean Bean and Elijah Wood were facing off and while the anger was there, it was subdued, with Frodo dealing more with feelings of betrayal, and trying to know who to trust. So the ending of the first film, where he not only learns to stand on his own two feet, but also to trust other people, really felt strong. So as a film choice, I say Jackson Frodo is better.

When it comes to Sam…I don’t really have to write anything. Jackson version on both counts, what is there to say. I am personally not totally impressed by the Jackson same, I wanted a little bit more subtly, but that being said, I felt that he played the part well, and the actor was certainly good.

Merry/Pippin are always grouped together, especially in the movies, so lets go with it. In terms of loyalty to the book, the animated is the clear winner. I was very unimpressed by the movie version, even through I rather liked those actors, they just feel too comic, too blatant, and too flat as characters, they felt too gimmicky. While they are pretty much comic relief in the story, both characters are different in the books, more observant and generally more intelligent and easy to take seriously, while the Jackson version felt flanderized. But the animated version don’t do very much, while I take them all more seriously, they just hang out and occasionally say lines, so while I liked them better as loyal to the book, the Jackson version at least I could remember them, so I suppose it wins in terms of a movie.

Boromir is a clear Jackson win on both sides. In the animated version, he is kind of an angry barbarian who just hangs around yelling at things. He goes through the motions of the book character and does the same actions, but he doesn’t really have any personality. So if the Jackson character was only slightly decent, he would win. Thing is, he wasn’t slightly decent, he was flat out amazing. Sean Bean I think was the single best actor in the whole production, with the possible exception of Christopher Lee. And yes, I know that a lot of people in this cast were really good actors. But Sean Bean covered the role, he showed the elements of the character’s personality without making it seem forced or unnatural, and making an actual personality show through. When the animated Boromir dies, you kinda feel like “well good, that guy won’t be on stage anymore” while this one really came off as conflicted. Sean Bean really tried to make his character seem sympathetic rather than unlikable, like the scene where he is mock fighting with the hobbits and accidentally hurts one, leading to him to drop his sword going “sorry”. And any older sibling who ahs accidentally hurt a younger one in a game by mistake knows that feeling. And when talking to Aragon, he really seemed like he was trying to hid his anger and resentment and see past it, like the cut scene in the Fellowship when they see Gollum. Even when he assaults Frodo, you get the impression of a man who is growing desperate and angry, rather than a brute, and he very easily shows his grief after he comes to control himself. And his death was most likely, the best part of the series for me, both in how his self sacrifice was so hard fought and how he seemed to be desperately trying to redeem himself even through death, as well as his final talk with Aragon. Boormir’s death was tragic, and emotional, but extremely moving, and I think the best thing Jackson has ever done. I really want Sean Bean to be in more good movies, through nothing I’ve seen him in has been good. As you can imagine, Jackson wins on both counts

Gimli-Now, Gimli was one of my favorite characters in Lord of the Rings both because the Dwarves in the Hobbit were so cool (Thorin Oakenshield was amazing), but also because he seemed the most rounded character. Not flawless as Aragon or Gandalf, nor as well spoken as the hobbits, he was somewhat sarcastic and ill tempered, but he seemed very human. I liked his constant badgering of the elves, who were in fact a bunch of elitist, and his relationship with Legolas I found more interesting than any other in the story. And his character development was more subtle. Not given a point of view or even much of a focus, his relationship with the new people he sees is really much more interesting than various speeches, badassly impressive they may be. Thus, I was very mixed on the animated vs. movie version. The Jackson version (I’ve been calling it the movie version a lot haven’t I), is played by John Rhys Davies, who I actually think is a very good actor. The design for the character is ideal, opposed to the animated one, which looks like one of the Seven Dwarves on stilts, and if this was judged by the fist movie alone I’d give it a win for Jackson on both counts. But…the second movie hurt it. Gimli becomes nothing more than a comic relief, and one based mostly upon his height and bulk, which I felt was truly unfair. The character was more human, but never silly, and everything about him was exaggerated so much that he didn’t feel like a legitimate character. It felt like the stereotypical dwarves from D&D settings where they were just added in because dwarves are traditional. Hell, the dwarf from the D&D movie was like this guy, it was painful. So, and this pains me because John Davies is trying, oh so hard here, the animated version wins on both counts. Sigh. And does anybody else find it odd that a story’s whose moral is how small people are still strong in there own right, has all of these short jokes.

Legolas. Now, Legolas was a side character in the book who I liked, but not enamored with, his most interesting part in the story was his conversations with Aragorn or Gimli over the course of the story. And, this might be a good time to mention that I really dislike Olando Bloom as an actor, he has never impressed me with…anything. Unlike Johnny D, who can be annoying but if given a good role he can prove that he is a good actor, (Public Enemies), Bloom doesn’t impress me, he really kinda annoys me. He has no expression, can’t change his voice tone outside that painfully melodramatic drawl, and he seems to be entirely relying upon his looks. This is most likely his best film, which isn’t saying much all things considered. That being said, Legolas in the animated version, while he has more lines and actually talks to people and does stuff other than shooting things and staring into space. So in terms of loyalty to the book, animated for the win. But I will say, however much I dislike Bloom, he does look the part, and within the realm of action and looking dramatic, with the exception of the stupid shield stair case scene, it is better for the film as a whole. He didn’t hurt the film very much, unlike some other film’s he’s been it (oh gods Troy), and has some pretty cool fights, especially in the first movie.

Right, so finally Aragon. For those of you who saw the Nostalgia Critic Video, you can pretty much skip this, because I agree with him entirely. I don’t dislike Viggo Mortensen, who I think is a legitimate actor, but he isn’t impressive. His character feels flat and uninteresting, and he doesn’t have any real depth to him. The absurdly painful love triangle just came off as forced and contrived way to add character development, while I feel that the animated one came off as legitimately interesting. I liked that he didn’t have a beard and looked vaguely Native America, but his mannerism was far more impressive. He was well spoken, thoughtful, and felt less like Clint Eastwood as a ranger and more like the character from the book, a king and a warrior. Both counts animated

Finally Gandalf. And I have to admit, this one is really trickly, because both of them are pretty impressive. Both are impressive, wise, and intelligent, but Ian McKellen is just such a good actor, that Jackson on both counts.

Right, and since unlike the Nostalgia Critic, I’m not complete hack (am I trying to start a rivalry hear? Speaking of Nostalgia), so I’m going to go into the side characters from the first two movies as well

Now Elrond is interesting in that he doesn’t really have a major role in the books directly, but is an essential character, and the Jackson film took a pretty interesting take on it. In the animated one, he is sort of the standard way people imagine him, wise, benevolent and wise, but the Jackson version is a bit of a git. He is still intelligent and powerful, but he is cynical, jaded, and elitist, sort of presenting the dark side of the elves, pride and haughtiness, while still clearly being a good guy. And, through I might be bias cause I really like Hugo Weaving as an actor, I was really impressed by how this was handled. Unlike a lot of added character development in the trilogy, he felt actually really natural, the scene where he explains to Gandalf why he has no faith in humans is really well done, explaining both one of the main themes of the book very effectively and also shows a very interesting side of the character, embittered by mortals and his duty as the guardian of Middle Earth. This does stand in stark contrast in the book, but honestly, I think it is one of the few cases where that is an improvement, the character feels more real and fleshed out. He still is clearly a good guy, and does all the things he does in the book, but in this he is embittered and angry. So a win on both counts.

Arwin. Now this isn’t very far cause Arwin, played by Liz Tyler, isn’t in the animated version and has a lot of screen time in the Jackson version. So win on both counts for the animated version, because while she was a good character in the book, her character in the movie serves as an charismatic black hole, destroying everything around her. Cut her and thrown in Glorfindel instead, or whatever, just don’t have her. Animation wins.

Bilbo. Bilbo in the Animation is pretty good, he fills all of the roles, but Jackson one is played by Ian Holms, and that is pretty hard to top, both in his great body language and his expressions. But that being said, there were a few parts that the animation just felt more natural in the animation. The most important example is when Bilbo sees Frodo with the Ring, and over reacts. In the Jackson version, his face literally remade with computer graphics so that he seems demonic, while in the other animated version he simply has a very sinister expression. Its more subtle, less over the top and more human. However, as a whole, I think Jackson takes this one.

Théoden is the last hero character who I’ll focus on, because Galadriel is about the same in each version. The animated version, for once, seems to have a better actor, the voice actor who expresses more emotions, but Bernard Hill, unlike some of the bad actors (who ever played Faramir and Eomer I’m looking at you) he really tries, and that actually makes his character quite likable. And they added a lot of complexity to him, that, while it did feel a little forced, still made him feel more three dimensional. Animated for accuracy, Jackson for quality. Not counting the third movie of course, which annoyed me far more at Jackson.

Finally, the villains. And I’m including monsters as types.

First, the Nazgul/Ringwraiths. And I have to totally agree with the Nostalgia Critic on this one, the ones in the animation, while a little over the top at time are much scarier. Here I think, animation really helps, because the riders seem more surreal. The ones in the mover are just dudes in armor with cloaks, and there true forms are just funny looking ghosts, while the ones in the animation look, even in there hoods, bizarre and inhuman. And there true form, they look downright badass, tall armored warriors who’s very being seems shadowy, with faces that only emit red glows. These guys are how I picture the Nazgul, shadowy, regal, but shaded, opposed to blurry old men. Also, they have dialogue, and its really creepy “come back, come back, to Morder we will take you”. Animation wins, on both counts

Next the orcs. Now, this doesn’t seem like a far challenge, the orcs of the animated version were just a bunch of blurry monsters with swords who screamed a lot, while the orcs from the Jackson films were really cool looking, with extremely varied appearance. There were the cockroach like goblins of Moria, the various mutants of Mordor, and the tall militaristic Uruk-hai. The costumes and weapons were also quite good and developed, and the creatures were quick frankly, really cool looking. There is one thing that I think can be said for the animated version through, they are scarier. The orcs in Jackson films were big and toothy, but they weren’t scary, they were more just ugly cannon fodder. The ones from the animated film were out right disturbing, gibbering like mad beasts and swarming like strange maniacs. And the fighting was more brutal, when they killed people there was this sickening “thunk” noise, like a body being hacked to pieces brutally. But, Jackson’s version counters that with the character “Lurtz” the head Uruk-hai of Saurman who’s short life we see from beginning to end, and providing more personality and a face to the orcs. The guy wasn’t scary, but he was cool and interesting, and had two cool fight scenes, plus he dramatically killed Sean Bean, so Jackson still wins on both cakes

Trolls only appear briefly in the animated version, but that is actually closer to the book, with only a foot being seen before being stabbed. But the cave troll fight was really epic and cool, especially when the troll moans and wheezes right before he dies, making him somewhat sympathetic. So I liked its use.

Saruman I think is a trump for Jackson because….Its Christopher Lee. Is there anyway the cartoon could compete? No….no there isn’t. Jackson both points.

Finally, the one, the only, the Dark Lord Sauron. Now those of you from the Order of the Stick boards no doubt remember, I am a fan of this character. Because he is not only super powerful and commands massive armies, as far as evil villains go, he is actually pretty damn smart. Relying not upon brute force and massive armies, he prefers to destroy his enemies from within and subvert the ideals of others, corrupting them into evil. Single handedly destroying the greatest human kingdom on earth for example, simply be talking his way into there high command. Sauron was smart and ruthless as well as being pretty genre savvy. He does not confront the good guys head on if he can help it, and he tends to use subversive measures instead of direct assault. In fact, he pretty much has a counter for most of the good guys moves, except for the idea that they would send a pair for hobbits, neither of whom were warriors into the heart of his realm to destroy the most powerful artifact of his age. The good guys literally did something so stupid, he didn’t expect it. But the thing is, Sauron was scary. Why? Because we never met him. The characters reference him, often trying to avoid his name, and talk about him, but we never actually see him at any point in the books. He is instead a dark hostile force who’s very influence causes fear in even the strongest characters. We see other powerful evil forces, such as Saruman or the Balrog, which prove great physical challenges to the characters, but all of these are said to be but servants of the dark master. And unlike a lot of “Dark Lords”, who are defeated at the end and look silly (Death Lord from the High King/Book of Three), Sauron is never at any point really hurt. He has push backs, and defeats, like when losing the Seeing Stone to Aragorn, its rightful owner, but at no point do we see him in all of his power. He never fully reveals himself, and in fact, kinda fights the war with on hand behind his back, focusing on wearing down his enemies. This sort of “unseen horror” is in The Hobbit as well, where the “Necromancer” of Dol Guldor is described again and again as a power far greater than anything the good guys can muster, but he is intriguing because nothing is really explained about him. Even in LOTRS, Sauron is never fully explained, because simply trying to understand him would lead to the corruption of the mind. The only time Sauron makes an appearance is when his eye is on one of the group, his sheer thought and evil overwhelms them. Sauron is the ultimate evil that is always watching, but never bothering to expose itself. So in terms of how the character was handled, I think the animation did it better. Cause he didn’t do anything directly, the idea being if he did, the entire party would be dead. While in the movie, he didn’t seem to have a personality. In the books and even the animated movie, there are hints of his personality and mind, but they are only ominous hints, that lead to more questions than answers, rather than increasing the mystic of Sauron. While in the Jackson movie, the first one I could forgive him as a massive warrior, cause at that age, his ability to shape shift had been destroyed and he would be unable to hid his true form, plus he was desperate. But then, they made his “True form” a giant eyeball, on top of a tower. And that just seemed dopy. The thing about Sauron is, the Eye of Sauron is literally his eye, not the guy, he is said to have fingers by Gollum, who beheld him and was driven even more insane than normal. The nature of the Eye, like most of the character, is never explained, its nature is only hinted at. When the main villain is nothing more than a giant eyeball that looks around on a tower, it just feels, dopy and stupid, the character is just a big goofy monster. The Jackson version is too explicit, no subtly not detail. So, animation both times.

I’d say props/feeling of realism, but…Jackson version, hands down. No way can you compete with Weta Workshop.

Action scenes, now I admit, the brutal fighting and the constant suspense of the animated one gives it props, and the Jackson version does suffer from stupidly over the top fight scenes at times. But that being said, for the most part in the first two movies, falling into orc groups and shield surfing non withstanding, the fight scenes are fairly realistic. The armor and weapons aren’t totally absurd, the people aren’t doing stupidly super human thing, and most of the tactics make sense…most of them. And the final fight of the first movie was flawless, again, not too over the top, but exciting and enjoyable, with a character dying dramatically. So yeah, again, both go to Jackson

And I have them about tied when it comes to plot and faithfulness, each one cuts out/keeps in different elements and parts of the book so how much doesn’t really matter. In terms of edition, its hard. Jackson wins, but only barely, as he is a horrible editor, and we aren’t counting the third film, and because the animated one was stuck in developer hell and thus suffers from some severe cutting issues

So there you have it in a nut shell, my own take on Nostalgia Critic’s idea. I have the same conclusion, Jackson wins, just due to higher production value. But my reasoning is different so it isn’t a total rip off…right. Right? Guys?

From

EE