| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Carabas
Starting Member
20 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 04:08:35
|
No, I'm not really gonna make any comparisons, but I have seen that some people on this site have made them (and people on other sites too, of course). You know, saying that DL may go the way of LotR and spawn a better version down the line.
As I wrote on the imdb forum:
'Unfortunately, crap visuals will (most likely) equal crappy sales, which in turn will mean that DL is thrown on the scrap heap with a "do not touch with 10 ft pole" sign attached.'
I just want to say that the comparison is not in this movie's best interest. Yes, it is comforting to think that maybe DL can go the way of LotR and have a "better" movie made some time in the future. This assumes that everyone thought that the LotR movie by Ralph Bakshi was bad. They didn't. By today's standards (which is what most people apply when they think about it) the animated LotR is, to many people... well, weird, and not very well done.
However, the fact is that it was considered innovative and, even though it was highly shortened (and whatever other criticisms there were), it was considered very interesting, visually. Which is, no matter what anyone says, very important in an adaptation of a book. Without good visuals, there is no need for a movie adaptation -- if you want the story, then read the book.
The animated LotR was not a flop by any means. In the US alone, it made 30 million dollars, in my own little country (Sweden) it made 5 millions -- this is not counting rentals. Not bad for a movie with a 4 milion dollar budget. It spawned a new interest in LotR as a whole, and was on the whole considered a success (no matter what some people may say).
So, if you are thinking about comparing the animated adaptation of DL with the Bakshi version of LotR... just think about it a bit. It may not be the best thing you can do.
Ok, so this was my first new topic here... be gentle with me.  |
|
|
Priest4hire
Junior Member
Canada
158 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 05:45:15
|
Riddle me this: If the Bakshi version of The Lord of the Rings was so successful then why was the sequel never produced? The movie peters out about half way through The Two Towers. Sure, there's the Rankin/Bass version of The Return of the King. But it's just an adaptation of the third book and doesn't attempt to hook up with the Bakshi movie. Yes, the box office take was decent but I have to wonder. Perhaps the studio believed that $30 million wasn't all that great, especially considering the popularity of the source, and that a second title attached to this one would be doomed to failure. In other words the ticket sales were mostly due to it being a LotR film but that the actual movie would scare away viewers from any follow up.
The movie itself is a mess. Interesting is not a word I'd use to describe that mix of poorly disguised live action footage and mediocre rotoscope work. The latter was so bad the artists blissfully animated in bloopers like Aragorn tripping over his own sword. That they didn't fix that mishap speaks volumes about the so called animators* working on the film. Nor was there anything innovative about those techniques. Rotoscoping had been around half a century by then and mixing in live action, regular or disguised, had been done many times before.
I agree that visuals are important. But that doesn't any visual approach is good for any movie or adaptation. Had the book been a work of surrealism there would be call for a more surreal visual style. But when you adapt a plot heavy work like LotR the visuals must work to support, not undermine, that plot. By mixing in live action the Bakshi film undermined the continuity of it's own fictional world. There is simply nothing in the story that supports such a break.
That said I don't see any particular comparison between the films. That it turned out the way it did for LotR is just a peculiarity of that particular franchise. Just as the way Dune was made into a very flawed movie, a decent mini-series, and now is apparently being made into a movie again. Like we really need more Dune. Or how I Am Legend had three movies with three different titles. It's just the fickle nature of fate.
* One little secret about rotoscope work is that you don't need actual animators to do it. It takes some skill but mostly in draftsmanship. The ability to animate is not required.
"There is no particular mystery in animation... it's really very simple, and like anything that is simple, it is about the hardest thing in the world to do." - Bill Tytla |
Edited by - Priest4hire on 07 Jan 2008 05:48:20 |
 |
|
|
Carabas
Starting Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2008 : 06:21:40
|
The main reason for not following up what was in fact a financial success, has been stated that it was disliked by a lot of critics (Paramount would not cough up the cash), and Bakshi himself has stated that he realised that he didn't feel right, adapting other peoples' stories. He would have found the money somewhere else, if he had had the inclination.
As for mediocre rotoscope work: Tried working under the conditions where you can get a cel a week from your each of your animators, because it is so complex? Of course that is going to make you cut some corners.
Yes, rotoscope is an old form of handling "animation", but it is also a fairly cost-efficient one. Paramount were not going to hand out unlimited cash to Bakshi, seeing as they were originally going to let Boorman do a 1h 40min adaptation that would encompass the whole trilogy. The live-action things were also a matter of budget.
For 4 million dollars, the adaptation is pretty impressive.
You don't think that Lord of the Rings is surreal? There have been experiments with giving convicted drug-addicts the book to give them something to help them kick the habit.
Agreed, it is not as surreal as the Bakshi adaptation, but that's just it: it's his adaptation. He went somewhere with it that almost nobody had foreseen, and even though it was panned by the critics (who may have misunderstood it) it made more than 10 times its budget in cinemas (not having the figures for other countries than the US and Sweden, I'm estimating here), not to mention video rentals. The Oscar-winning Midnight Express of the same year made about the same amount of money (albeit with a slightly smaller budget).
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.
Those who live by the sword may get shot by those who don't. |
|
|
|
Priest4hire
Junior Member
Canada
158 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jan 2008 : 06:13:43
|
Yeah, I know that rotoscoping is cheaper. And I agree that for the scope of the movie it should have had a larger budget. Yet that doesn't excuse the bad rotoscoped character animation or the lack of any effort in making sure the various Middle-Earth names and words were pronounced properly or even consistently. Nor does it explain the filtered live action sequences. Consider that The Rescuers cost about $1.2 million. Granted it's shorter and not so epic and fairly rough for Disney. But LotR does not look twice as good. I'd take the quality character animation of The Rescuers over the artificial smoothness of LotR any day.
The thing about doing an adaptation is that one has a responsibility to the material. If that's too much one should not adapt other people's work. It might be Bakshi's adaptation but he was playing in Tolkien's sandbox and should have behaved accordingly. This is a movie where the creators couldn't even decide if Saruman should be called Saruman or Aruman. How much respect is present where the director can't even be bothered to reshoot a scene with a blatant flaw, Gandolf getting caught in his own cape for example, or fix it in animation?
I'm not saying the movie is all bad. It has some good scenes and some of the adaptation work in the script was good. But for every good scene there's stuff like the alien universe in the Prancing Pony Inn or some rotoscoped character milking the giant cow. And for every good script change there's something inexplicable. Like Sam hiding in a bush or the Council of Elrond scene or (S)Aruman blasting the walls of Helm's Deep with sparkly magic.
So Paramount wouldn't cough up the cash. Perhaps lots of people went to see the movie because it was The Lord of the Rings and all but not that many actually liked it. That Paramount decided not to reveal that it was only half of the series despite the name was a pretty low bit of bait and switch. I am aware that it wasn't Bakshi's fault. Still, it wouldn't be a shock if it was not all that well received. One should never confuse ticket sales with how an audience likes a film.
"There is no particular mystery in animation... it's really very simple, and like anything that is simple, it is about the hardest thing in the world to do." - Bill Tytla |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Comparisons to LotR (animated)
