Bakshi Movie script question

[Yazad]

Hello everyone!

I've been away for many months, but I've got a question or two I thought someone might be able to help me out with.

Now I hope I don't get massacred overmuch for this, but when walking out of the Jackson film for the first time the one thought in my mind was that I had a new appreciation for the Bakshi film. It's not that I didn't like the new version, I thought it was very good, but at the same time, Bakshi's version feels more like an artistic interpretation to me, while this feels more like a translation, if that makes any sense. Both are valid, certainly, and I enjoy both very much!

My questions are these: Does anyone know if a screenplay exists for Bakshi's version? Early drafts? What was included? Were there scenes animated which ended up getting cut? I've seen the film scores of times and I've recently seen cells which I don't remember seeing in the film. Plus I'd like to know what he had in mind. I've recently also read some interviews with him where he shines a bit of light on the production, but I'd like to know more. Does anyone know how much the film was budgeted for? How much it ended up costing?

Has a script of the Boorman version survived?

Anyway, I thank you all for your time. What a wonderful groop the Entmoot is to be sure!

Yazad

[bropous]

Wow. Some very good questions there, Yazad. Unfortunately, I have no answers for them.

All I know is that the Bakshi film was much closer to the text of the book as far as quotations for the proper characters, and therein, I believe, lies the rub.

See, my take on why so many quotes from the books were missing in the Peter Jackson film, or were given to other characters, or quoted at different times, was because of whatever copyright Bakshi's film had on its screenplay. I think, had Mr. Jackson, who did a FANTASTIC job in crafting "Fellowship of the Ring", actually gone ahead and quoted directly from the book, would have been accused [or even worse, SUED] for violating the copyright of the Bakshi-ized screenplay. See, I think the Bakshi version, cartoonish as it was, was a beautiful rendition of the books. The screenplay was excellent, aside from a few howlers here and there [uh, calling Saruman "Aruman", par exemplar], did a wonderful job in taking quotes directly from the books and giving them to the proper characters.

I think that Peter Jackson was forced into striking his own new ground, necessarily avoiding the accusation that either he "took Bakshi's screenplay", or might have ended up getting the film YANKED from theaters mid-release because of some US Federal Circuit judge's ruling, or even worse, some EU judge's edict.

No, I think that Bakshi's film "muddied the waters" for any person to make a REAL film from the books.

Please forgive me, but who is "Boorman", an what "version" did he script? I hope this is not some misspelling of Klaus Voorman's name, and that he had not scripted the first abominable attempt at a screenplay of the film back in the sixties, which had the Beatles playing major characters of the books? Please tell me I'm wrong!

[Wayfarer]

Zimmerman, maybe? He did that awful script that tolkien himself went and Slapped Down <tm>.

As far as taking things from the bakashi movie... did anyone else notice that, for example, the tree under which the hobbits hide from Khamul looks exactly the same in the Bakashi and Jackson films?

[Yazad]

Whew! I'm glad so far nobody's been upset. There's a lot of vitriol going around about Bakshi's film, which I've always liked.

Wayfarer, YES! I did notice that! I was really amazed and shocked, but I believe I've seen that tree interpreted that way by other artists too, so maybe it's more of a general feeling rather than a copyright issue. Either way I loved that shot in both films (although I could have done without the bugs in the new version and without the idiotic Nazgul who follows the pack but ignores the fleeging halflings.).

In a recent interview Bakshi said, I believe, that John Boorman (Deliverance, Excalibur) wrote a script for a live-action version of the film in the mid seventies. It was condensed down to a single film and was apparently much altered. Bakshi convinced executives at UA and MGM (I believe) to let him do an animated version instead and got Saul Zaentz (sp?) to produce it. When the executives agreed, the Boorman script was thrown out, but I'd dearly love to know what he had in mind. Barring the two versions of LotR, Excalibur is my favorite fantasy film of all time (by a long way). I'm sure his interpretation would have been very interesting indeed.

As far as violating Bakshi's copyright, while it's possible, I don't think so. Maybe, but I think Saul Zaentz actually owns it and he licensed it to Jackson & Co. for his trilogy. I believe that this is what slowed up the production, and what (THANK GOODNESS) kept Lucas from making a version a decade ago.

Well, regardless, I think that visual interpretations of literary works are wonderful, as long as each one is the filmmaker's vision of the story. I love to see other people's interpretations!

Yazad

[bropous]

Wayfarer, here I go asking for cites again, but where did you get the info that the Ringwraith who "sniffed about" for Frodo on the Old Road is named Khamul? Interesting detail, and I haven't run across that info so far.

And no, Yazad, no one should jump on you for asking a question. It was a good question, and the Bakshi DID have its good points. By the way, welcome to the Moot!

Valar preserve us, if Lucas had gotten his hands on the rights to LotR. The friggin' hobbits would be turned into Ewoks and the Elves into Jedi...he'd stick an obnoxious, precocious kid in it looking for an alien between Bree and Weathertop, and Aragorn would bloody well be listening to '50s music crusing the Old East-West Road in a pink '57 Caddy the night before leaving to join the Army...

I happen to love Peter Jackson's interpretation of LotR.

[Pailan]

Originally posted by bropous
See, my take on why so many quotes from the books were missing in the Peter Jackson film, or were given to other characters, or quoted at different times, was because of whatever copyright Bakshi's film had on its screenplay. I think, had Mr. Jackson, who did a FANTASTIC job in crafting "Fellowship of the Ring", actually gone ahead and quoted directly from the book, would have been accused [or even worse, SUED] for violating the copyright of the Bakshi-ized screenplay.

Now BP, I am a tad confused here. How can PJ be sued for using Tolkien's words out of Tolkien's characters mouths? If the Bakshi script used Tolkien faithfully, surely PJ's writers could chose to do so as well. It is the same source so where would the copy right issue be? And since Zantz holds the film rights to all Tolkien LOTR movies wouldn't it turn into him suing himself?

Copy right law be damned. Say the right words were they belong.

[Yazad]

Hi again!

On Lucas: Yeah, and you can bet we'd have Smeagol running around saying "Meesa smoka da gonja my precious" as he flapped his big ears around.

On Saul Zaentz: So what exactly does he own? Rights to create any filmed version of any of Tolkien's works? What about films inspired by his works? Does anyone have any idea what the real terms of the agreement were? Just curious. It's really an amazing thing.

On Jackson and Bakshi Images: Another that jumped to mind yesterday on my way home was the Nazgul attack in Bree. It was very similar (though, (don't kill me!) IMO, not nearly as frightening) to Bakshi's version.

On copyrights: Yeah, I agree with Pailan, I don't think it would become a matter of copyright infringement as far as language goes. Jackson could have been criticized by critics for creating a "remake" of the 1978 version, I suppose. Now images might be another matter. Bakshi may retain some rights as to some visual compositions, but I'm not certain about that.

That said, I understand where bropous is coming from. Why in the world would one choose to depart so much from the language of the text, when it's so close to perfect as it is. Kinda forces you to look for a reason to explain it.

y

[bropous]

I think it's my training as a paralegal to look for the "litigious" answer to questions like these. Working for those "bastige" attorneys will make anyone look at life through the filter of lawsuits.

So, in order to explain why the quotes are gone, I immediately think "copyright", "infringement", and "lawsuit." It could very well be that Jackson simply did not want someone coming out saying that his film was just a remake of Bakshi's version, but the original text is just so good, so important to the story, that there has to be SOME other explanation than just avoiding criticism.

Look at the recent controversy over historian Stephen Ambrose and plagiarism, and you can see similarities in the ciritcisms should Jackson have used "already trodden ground" in the screenplay for FotR. I really think that the Bakshi film's screenplay's copyright got in the way.

Jeez, attorneys screw up EVERYTHING!!!! LOL!

[Pailan]

Not having seen the Bakshi production since it's original release, I feel a bit out of my element.

I was mulling over some of the changes in the "who said what to whom" department. ie Galadriel says the "this task has been appointed to you", speech. While originally spoken by Elrond, it works for me.

How was this handled in the 1978 Bakshi piece. Does the scene even exist?

[Yazad]

In the Bakshi film, it's Elrond who says this, at the appropriate time at the Council. However, the speech is greatly trimmed (as are most things in that version).

It is perplexing, but maybe Jackson & Co. thought it would enhance watchability and understandability to people unfamiliar with the books???

Who knows, but I bet someone will ask him soon!

Yazad

[bropous]

Pailan, I highly reccomend renting the video of the Bakshi film. It may not be the best, in toto, but there are some VERY good parts in it.

[Serena]

I saw the animated film, soon after I finished reading the triliogy. I thought it was semi-ok. Some stuff was stupid, like the flying Balrog, but I have to give Bashki the credit for actually trying to turn LOTR into a movie. He could have done a lot worse, too.

[jerseydevil]

Actually Yasad - and I don't care if I get any hate mail - I like the beginning of the Bakshi film better. I don't particularly like the way the animation was done, but I like how the beginning of it stayed true to the book. I hate the second half of the Bakshi film though. I have it on DVD so I think I'll watch it tonigh and compare Bakshi's movie with Jackson's and the book.

I was rereading FOTR and my honest opinion is that Jackson did not make LOTR for LOTR fans - but definitely for the mass market and for the people that have never seen it.

FOTR the book has very few intense action scenes, there are no strewn bodies in the Mines of Moria, Saruman doesn't have an intense battle with Gandalf, The Nazgul never chop someone's head off on the way to Hobbiton, no near fist fight during the Council of Elrond, I can go on and on. LOTR starts off as an adventure, the hobbits feel they are going on a simple adventure. It really isn't until The Two Towers that things get intense.

Based on what I've seen with the changes made in FOTR - I'm wondering if Frodo and Sam are going to be recruiting a whole army on their side while in Mordor. Everyone must admit - there isn't much action while Frodo tries making his way to Mount Doom. There are no huge battle scenes, just pure suspense.

Let's face it - Jackson made an action movie - not THE Lord of the the Rings.

Even though I've seen the movie 5 times - I'm still waiting for The Lord of the Rings movie that includes the suspense and character development of the book. Jackson did not succeed in bringing LOTR to the big screen.
I will give him credit for capturing the landscape of Middle Earth though.

I'll continue to read the book and watch the action movie of the Lord of the Rings. The movie and book have almost nothing in common other than the underlying plot.

[Yazad]

Pailan: I agree with bropous, give the Bakshi film a day in court. Even if you hate it it's good to have exposure (IMO) to the stuff that's out there, if you're into interpretations. It's especially interesting when you can compare different filmmakers' ideas about what the world and characters are like.

Serena: I agree that some of the stuff in the Bakshi film was really bad, and the balrog scene paled dramatically in comparison with Jackson's version. There were lots of other problems too, of course, including the blatant mispronounciation of Celeborn, but, I have to say that I'd much rather have the name mispronounced and have a performance worth a darn. Celeborn's (and all of the Lorienites) was awful IMO in the Jackson film.

Jerseydevil:

On the Bakshi film in general: I enjoyed the whole movie, I think. I didn't much care the seemingly silly overuse of rotoscoping with very little animation in the second half, and when one of our main characters pops on the screen they shine like the sun, 'cause they're the only ones who are animated.

I thought the wraiths were much more frightening and interesting in the Bakshi film.

I thought the Flight to the Ford was one of the greatest scenes I've ever seen, and the Jackson version is a joke in comparison.

Weathertop was also very well done.

The Nazgul voices, I think, are fantastic.

The council was also many times better than Jackson's.

I agree that the intro to the Bakshi film really catches the magic in a literary way which matches the books better than the Jackson version (except the kinda silly switch to animation when Deagol catches his fish, and Gollum's wacky hair (which looks fake!) when he's in the cave), buuuut, I really thought Sauron looked cool, and I loved the image of Isildur with Sauron's burning finger almost as much as Mr. Jackson did (judging by the amount of times he showed it). Having Galadriel doing the narration was mediocre, but the footage was mostly truly gorgeous. My favorite clip in the entire Jackson film was the visual image we got of Gollum in the cave. Now that was glorious.

Oh, and somehow to me the Bakshi film flows *much* better than the Jackson one, and really seems to leave out less to me, but maybe it's just all the best weed in the Shire I've been smoking.

On the Jackson film: I liked it too, and I would say that he did bring an interpretation of the LotR to the screen. It may not have been a very literal interpretation, but it was an interesting action-oriented/crowd pleasing one. I've seen it three times (and that's probably it until the DVDs come out), but I'm really looking forward to seeing the Two Towers and I'll be in-line on Day 1 for it as well. But, you can bet that if Jackson's Two Towers was to come out on the same day as Bakshi's Lord of the Rings: Part II, I'd be in the Bakshi line. It's a great gladness that I'll actually get to see the former, and a great sadness that we'll never see the latter.

Oh, now, I must say, that the little bones that Jackson seemed to be throwing to the fans really insulted me. I mean, at least I think that's what he was doing. With his verbal utterings of "Riddles in the Dark", "Shortcut to Mushrooms", etc. I mean, does he really think that that's gonna make me say "Ooooh, coool! I know what that means!!!"

Okay, for all the complaining, I am really happy that the films were made and I really enjoyed the first installment, and am desperately waiting for the next. But I guess it's the my nature to pick apart things that I love. When someone comes in from the outside to criticize it, though, you can rest assured I'll be there defending it!

Yazad

[jerseydevil]

I agree with you Yadas on several points. I thought the little "chapter headings" were pretty corny. But I'll be at the 12:01am showing of The Two Towers at AMC Hamilton 24. And I'll get the DVD when it first comes out, just like I have the Bakshi version on DVD.

My main problem with the Bakshi version of course is the fact that he went on a complete tangent in the middle of the movie.

I'd hate to say this - the opening scene of Jackson's LOTR of Sauron - almost turned me off. With Sauron standing there - with obviously superimposed flames and what looked to be a plastic suit holding up the One Ring - I had flash backs to the Bashki film with the live action mixed with animation scenes.

[jerseydevil]

Bropous:

I think you're wrong about the legal issues. I'm watching Bakshi's version right now and there are several lines that are spoken word for word by the same characters in Jackson's movie.

Obviously there was no reason for the many changes that Jackson made. Of course now I am back to despising the Flight to the Ford scene.

Bakshi's portrayal of Gandalf and several other characters better reflect their characterizations in the book also. Of course his version had a ton of problems too. Most I think had to do with the mixed animation.

I wish I could say I love Jackson's movie - but I don't. It's a good action movie - but that's it. As far as I'm concerned - LOTR has not successfully been brought to the screen. Maybe moneywise it has - with me making many donations, but in terms of bringing the feeling and characters of the books to the screen - neither truly succeeds.

Of course LOTR is bringing in tons of money - so Jackson right now isn't too concerned about what people think of his version. It's the only one we really have - so I guess I'll have to accept it.

[Pailan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Bropous:

I think you're wrong about the legal issues. I'm watching Bakshi's version right now and there are several lines that are spoken word for word by the same characters in Jackson's movie.

Thanks JD, I thought as much. Sorce material is source material.

Bropous, I will indeed rent the bakshi piece this weekend. And perhaps I can fill in some of my own blanks.

[bropous]

"Bropous, I will indeed rent the bakshi piece this weekend. And perhaps I can fill in some of my own blanks."

Er, don't you go blind from that? [wink!] And don't you say, "I'll stop when I need glasses!" LOL

Yazad and jerseydevil, I'l just call this a friendly disagreement. I loved the Jackson film, and the Sauron scenes, Galdriel's narration, the exposition of historical context from the beginning of the film, the Council of Elrond, the battle scenes, the dessicated corpses of the Dwarves in Moria, the inclusion of the chapter titles, the Nazgul, the Battle of the Istari, and the complete package of Jackson's retelling of the Fellowship of the Rings. I didn't care for some of the stuff in the Bakshi movie, like Frodo's sneering at Gandalf, Glorfindel's sneering at Samwise, Merry or Pippin's weirdo looks at Treebeard, etc., but again, there WERE some very good points to it.

No hate mail, no burning, withering critique of what you folks liked or disliked, just an honest disagreement. As I stated in another thread, film critique is a completely subjective matter, and whether I love the film or you hated it, jerseydevil, both of us are right in our own opinions.

[Pailan]

Originally posted by bropous
Er, don't you go blind from that? [wink!] And don't you say, "I'll stop when I need glasses!" LOL

Hmmm. Are you implying that I will need to visit the "adult section" at the video store to rent this? Well it's too late for me, I have been wearing glasses for some time. And it might be time to get (dare I say it?) bifoculs...YIKES!

[Yazad]

bropous:

Absolutely! I agree 100% that each of us has our own views on every film we see, and I think that's what makes it all so interesting. In a perfect world we would all be able to make our own LotR films, and we could all watch each other's movies and see what we like and dislike about everyone else's interpretations.

The only LotR film that I might consider "invalid" would be the one which is designed for the sole purpose of making money by pleasing as many people as possible, i.e. the "sell-out" film. That's not to say that Jackson or Bakshi or anyone else can't be forgiven for throwing in or taking out in order to make the film more palatable to a larger audience after all, (and there's no way around this, especially when you're trying to make an SFX extravaganza for $250,000,000*) this is show business and money must be made, sad as it may be to say. But there is a big difference in trying to change things a bit to appeal to a wider audience and trying to make a Happy Meal friendly, $$$ bonanza. In general you do what you can and be as pure as you can to your own vision while still appeasing the industry enough to be able to get the budget to be able to get the film made.

That's my take, at least.

As far as our individual tastes go, you are exactly right, it's just a disagreement, and a fun one at that, 'cause we can discuss it.

Yazad

* I just read a piece about Bakshi and that he used, as part of his rationale for making an animated version, the fact that a live action version would run as much as $30 million. Hee hee.