I didn't mind the Aragorn/Arwen scenes. Who wouldn't want to bang a Liv Tyler elf? Seriously.
I don't think Arwen was even in the Bakshi LOTR, which btw deserves more credit than it gets, Jackson even considers it an influence. And I think Bakshi actually did some things better than Jackson did.
Bakshi had to remove a LOT from the book, yet he managed to make a pretty adequete, well paced movie nonetheless. One thing I love about the Bakshi LOTR is the atmosphere, it had scenes that weren't really there to get the plot going but just to let you soak in everything around you, it had more subtely too and I liked how Sauron never makes an actual appearance, but you feel his presence just from how people talk about him. Bakshi used the power of suggestion instead of showing you everything, sometimes it produces a more powerful effect that way.
Sauron looked pretty ridiculous in Fellowship of the Ring with all his armor and stuff, they tried too hard to make him menacing looking. You keep waiting for him to say "SAURON SMASH!!!" or "SAURON GO BOOM!!!"
Bakshi's Aragorn was cooler too, and his Frodo was a bit more emotionally distant, but at the same time more courageous, cool and calculated. His Gandolf and Golum were great and not too different from the Jackson movies. He turned Samwise into a total clown though, sad to say.
Anyway. I would have liked for Jackson's trilogy to have more leisurely paced moments like the Bakshi film. Sometimes characters seem to talk really fast as if they just want to get some scenes over with.
Jackson's trilogy is still superior but sometimes the Bakshi cartoon did more with less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by storymilo
Lord of the Rings is an easy win in the movie department. The Harry Potter films are actually kind of laughably bad...
|
I thought the first two were really good, they're the only ones I've seen.