Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on December 30, 2003 at 09:52:08

In Reply to: Amazed at seeing that nobody has mentioned that earlier version of LOTR of 25 years ago! posted by orejones on December 30, 2003 at 09:13:23:

Bakshi's version of LoTR is almost unwatchable from my perspective and did nothing to capture the awesome grandeur and beauty of Middle Earth. Limited animation techniques combined with rotoscoping is certainly the wrong way to convey an epic of such bredth and power. The best I could say for it is that it was an interesting failure.

I'm sorry orejones, but IMHO you're way off base about Peter Jackson's direction; if the rhythm threw you off it was probably because so much careful editing was required to bring these films to theaters at a manageable length without losing too much peripheral information. If you ever have a chance to watch the extended versions you'll realize that the flow of the stories is much more consistent as filmed and less compromised. Also, I couldn't disagree with you more about the quality of casting/acting in all three films. Do I have minor quibbles? Of course, but these minor personal caveats pale in comparison to my admiration of the achievement of bringing to the screen a series of books which most folks believed could NEVER be filmed!

Return of The King has my vote for best film of the year, based on every film I've seen in 2003! In regards to a cinamatic vision of Tolkien's greatest works, Peter Jackson rules more than just Middle Earth, and he didn't require the ONE ring to accomplish it, ...at least as far as we know! ;^)

AuPh