Ralph Bakshi ‘s ‘Lord of the Rings’ Coming to Blu-ray in April

Robert Greenberger

Robert Greenberger is best known to comics fans as the editor of Who's Who In The DC Universe, Suicide Squad, and Doom Patrol. He's written and edited several Star Trek novels and is the author of The Essential Batman Encyclopedia. He's known for his work as an editor for Comics Scene, Starlog, and Weekly World News, as well as holding executive positions at both Marvel Comics and DC Comics.

You may also like...

31 Responses

  1. mike weber says:

    Did that copywriter ever actually see the pile of steaming cowflop he wrote that for?

    • Isaac says:

      Mike, please, not everybody thinks the same things about movies that you think are good or bad. That's why "Twilight" is not considered the greatest movie ever made, just because you and a few 12-year-old girls think so.

      • mike weber says:

        Yeah. Some people actually remember how awful this was.I saw it in its original theatrical release. Twice.Vass you dere. Tscharlie?I wanted to like it. I wanted a lot to like it.And, for a while, i even defended it.And i watched it a second time and realised how bad it was.The "rotoscope" photography – it's not "animation", and it's not even real rotoscope, for that matter (watch the Fleischer Bros "Superman" cartoons for real rotoscope) – is ugly, murky and lazy.And badly matched in with its surroundings, at that.Look – the Rankin-Bass "Hobbit" and "Return of the King" were better than this.

        • Isaac says:

          Actually, no, Rankin-Bass were not better than this, clearly, because this sold more, and is being reissued in a remastered special edition with special features discussing the animation that you decry as "crap".Using a different style does not mean that the art is crap. I know that you can't draw better than the artists who worked on this film, because several MAJOR animators and painters worked on this film, and you are not an artist.

          • mike weber says:

            I never said a different style was crap. I said that the way Bakshi uses it – here and in "American Pop" – is crap.And you're telling me that sales = quality?Well, there goes any relevance your opinion might have.

          • mike weber says:

            …and would you care to consider critic's responses to the film?Like 47% on Rotten Tomatoes?Or an assortment of other reviews, the mos favourable of which could be characterised as "damning with faint praise"?And denigrating anyone who couldn't (you assume) equal or better an artistic effort for pointing out that we can all too well see the Emperor's dangly bits is the kind of rhetorical trick resorted to by those either unable or too lazy to present a better rebuttal.

          • mike weber says:

            Oops:Or an assortment of other reviews, the most favourable of which could be characterised as "damning with faint praise", like FilmCritic.com, eFilm.com, Fantastic Movie Musings & Ramblings, SciFiMoviePage.com and Digital Retribution

          • Isaac says:

            I don't care about critical praise. Black Sabbath's first albums were slammed by critics when they first came out, but are now considered masterpieces. Same thing here, and with "American Pop", which has been called one of Ralph's best films.And despite critics slamming the film – LOTR made a hell of a lot of money when it came out, and it sold well enough on video and DVD to warrant a reissue.As stated repeatedly, several major comic book artists and painters worked on the animation that you call "crap". And they did a great job of it. You are not a better artist than Ian Miller, Mike Ploog, James Gurney, Thomas Kinkade or Peter Chung.

          • mike weber says:

            "As stated repeatedly, several major comic book artists and painters worked on the animation that you call "crap". And they did a great job of it. You are not a better artist than Ian Miller, Mike Ploog, James Gurney, Thomas Kinkade or Peter Chung."Yeah, neither are you. So what makes your opinion right and mine wrong?Any number of ghodawful movies have been worked on (or in) by supremely talented writers, directors, cameramen and actors. That still doesn't make them good movies.And even more *really* bad movies have been hugely successful commercially. That dictum about "underestimating the taste of the American people" still holds true.Further, i wasn't denigrating the work of any of those artists, i was denigrating the overall vision, technique and general wrongheadedness of Bakshi's overall vision and work."One of Ralph's best films" is like owning the best-restored car at an Edsel owners' convention. Of course, given it's competing against stuff like "Cool World", it's not hard, either.As to "American Pop" – could you please direct me to any reviews or commentary by anyone who actually demonstrably *knows* something that refers to "American Pop" as a masterpiece?(In that regard, i might ask, were you there and do you remember the era that "American pop" is supposedly a history of? I was, and do.)And i didn't call it "crap".. I called it "cowflop" … a more polite term.Oh – and as to Black Sabbath – they're an adequate band that never really impressed me much, either then or now.

          • Isaac says:

            I'm not bashing their artwork, so I don't need to be a better artist than these very, very famous individuals. (I have had a cult following as a comic book artist for 7 years.)Jerry Beck called [American Pop] "one of Bakshi's best films" in "The Animated Movie Guide".Just because you don't get something, that doesn't mean that it isn't art. Bakshi succeeded at bringing a jazz and avant-garde sensibility to animation, and the fact that his films are still popular and being reissued years after their release, despite the fact that many of his films are cult and aren't given the same kind of heavy advertising as the hottest special effects extravaganza with no deeper purpose other than buying the producers a new mansion (I.E., James Cameron's "Avatar") gives credence to their legacy.Bakshi is one of animation's most respected figures. You are not. Referring to "Cool World" as if that proves some kind of point makes it clear that you are – as I pointed out – a hater. You have no talent, no recognition, and your life is based around pointless bashing on the Internet. You do not contribute anything useful to this world. The people you bash have contributed a lot of important works to the art scene.And Black Sabbath is one of the greatest bands of all time.

          • mike weber says:

            (A) You're funny.(B) You think that popularity equals quality.(C) you think that because great talents participated in something, that makes it good. Going by that standard, i suppose you think that every film Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Lord Larry, Humphrey Bogart and Orson Welles ever made is great, too.(Which reminds me – speaking of cult films – have you seen "Dark Star", "Get Crazy" or "Once Upon a Time in the West"? And, if so, what did you think of them?)(D) You say that The Animated Movie Guide called "American Pop" one of Bakshi's best films. That's about equivalent to saying that one particular "Friday the 13th" or "Saw" film is one of the best of the series. (And what happened to "I don't care about critical praise" – or does that just apply when the critics don't agree with you?)(E) Referring to "Cool World" – which was lamer than usual for Bakshi, and which i went to hoping to like (as i've hoped to like every one of his films as much as i liked "Wizards" {the last good theatrical film he made, horribly derivative as it was}) and was, as usual, disappointed – is simply to point out that if anything he's getting worse.(Maybe my negative reaction to his later films is partly disappointment that he keeps raising my hopes and then disappointing me.)I am not "bashing" the artists you refer to – but, of course, you can't see that. I am "bashing", if you will, Bakshi's misuse of their talents while they could have been doing something worthwhile.I have not seen "Coonskin" nor "Hey Good Lookin'" – i actually dare to hope i might like them.Based on past going, i likely won't – but i'll watch them to see if they're any better.As to Bakshi's films being re-issued years later, so are the Troma Team's output and films like "reefer Madness" and "Werewolf Vs the Vampire Women".And as to you "cult following as a comic book artist" – why don't you tell me your real name and/or where i can find some of your work, since "Isaac" rings no bells.Not that that makes you any better qualified to judge animated films than i am (unless you're also an animator, in which case i'll listen to your opinions of the technical aspects of animation but your judgement of artistic merit is no better than mine – or anybody else's).I'm a professional electronics and computer tech, but that doesn't make me any more qualified than anyone else to judge films made with computers.But there is no absolute standard of quality that *you* get to declare and that others cannot dispute.Oh – and in case you've read this far – Bakshi's "Mighty Mouse" was excellent; i wish he could have stuck to that, but his image worked against him when the kooks came out with that "cocaine" thing.Unless you're older than i suspect you are, i've probably seen more films (animated and live action) and heard more music than you have.I remember the days when Black Sabbath was still judged as a minor but interesting band, basing their appeal more on image than quality. Do you?

        • Linda Gold says:

          I'm with you Mike. This is god-awful stuff that I really, really wanted to like.I have a fondness for the Rankin-Bass stuff which looks even better if you watch it after trying to watch the Bakshi mess.

      • mike weber says:

        I feel a need to respond to this now – after all the bumph you've been spouting about how this is a great film and how dare i say otherwise, because you know better than i do: Have you ever considered the chance that, just perhaps, the same applies to you? I have.Isaac, please, not everybody thinks the same things about movies that you think are good or bad.It's called "personal taste".You are allowed to like films i hate; i am allowed to hate films you like, or to like films you hate.The more you try to impose your personal taste by argument from authority (look it up if you've never heard the term before), the more i'm going to point out what's wrong with your argument.

        • Isaac says:

          Hey – you're the one who came on this site and decided to determine for the rest of us that a film that is being reissued to its popularity (despite lack of promotion) is a "cowflop".Popularity as the result of massive ad campaigns doesn't mean shit, but lasting popularity despite no additional advertising beyond a work's original release is a significant factor in the lasting quality of that work.This is not my favorite film of the director's – but you cannot deny that it has a strong enough fanbase to demand and receive a reissue in this manner. Thus, it's ridiculously fucking wrongheaded to call this movie a "cowflop", bash people who recognize Ralph Bakshi as one of animation's luminaries, diss artists with significantly more talent than you'll ever have – because any talent is better than none…do you get the picture?Do you understand how ridiculously absurd your campaign is? Anyone who comes on here will think that you're full of shit and a huge fucking asshole – because that's what you are.Haters have no life outside of their own self-centered hatred. Haters devote themselves solely to hate. No one gives a shit about their opinion because they do not put it out there in a manner that invites discussion, because there is no reason to argue against jealousy.You are clearly jealous of people who have achieved more than being a 40-year-old virgin living in his momma's basement jacking off to Disney cartoons.So what if a press release doesn't reflect your personal opinion? Not everyone thinks as highly of Hannah Montana as you do.

          • mike weber says:

            My response to this ended up being a separate comment, below.Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss it – i am so looking forward to your next highly intellectual and calmly-reasoned comments…

      • mike weber says:

        Oh – and i'm fairly sure "Twilight" is a steaming pile of cowflop, too. But bigger and smellier.Not that i've seen it, or am ever likely to.

  2. Brandon Barrows says:

    I love this movie. Can't wait to pick it up and replace the ancient VHS copy I have, though I'm not thrilled it's a dvd/blue-ray combo.

  3. mike weber says:

    Y'know, i don't think i've bothered to sink to the level of personal insult in this little pas de deux.Show me where i have once "diss"ed anyone save, possibly, Bakshi, who i consider over-rated in most regards, an opinion i am allowed to hold and to express, last i looked. In fact, i never mentioned those people at all – you're the one who dragged them into this.I haven't "bashed" anyone whose opinion i differ with – though i must admit it gets harder and harder to not get truly creative in your regard, since you gibber so nicely once wound up.I said – and i'm sure anyone who actually reads what i said from a standpoint other than a knee-jerk defensive one would agree – that what Bakshi did was badly done. (Yes, "cowflop" was hyperbole. So sue me.) And i will agree that the people you name are excellent artists, if sometimes inclined to associate themselves with the wrong projects. But the use made of their talents was poorly judged and -executed.(I don't, BTW, see any response to my request for you to tell me where/what your "cult status" as a funnybook artist is based on. I'm sincerely interested.)I'll tell you, just so you know, that i am rather older than 40 (having served in Viet Nam), and don't live in anyone's basement. I suspect that i have probably been reading comics and listening to popular music and watching movies rather longer than you have been alive. I learnt long long ago that mine is not only not the only possible view of anything, it's not even necessarily the only correct one.But i also learnt that argument from authority and citing the other work of people involved in the project under discussion as if it has bearing on said project, or equating popularity with quality, are not the sort of crushing rhetorical tactics you seem to believe they are. If anyone is coming off as a "fanboy" in this discussion (for want of a more descriptive but less socially-acceptable term for it), it's you, becoming progressively more and more shrill, dismissive and insulting.I could have sunk to the level you seem to prefer and engaged in personal insult, but it's more fun this way, actually.Oh – and i never came close to saying that the fans of anything (other than, say, kiddy porn or snuff films) shouldn't be allowed to enjoy whatever they want, nor that it shouldn't be available. I did question whether the copwriter had ever actually seen the film – but that's a common failing of package and cover blurbs. While Hannah Montana isn't one of my obsessions, there are other things that are less popular (if rather better done) that i do like that are not hugely popular (well, not where you'd likely have heard of them, though some are incredibly popular in the Real World). You might even like some of them, too.Of course, we'll never know, because you appear unable to engage in a calm discussion of anything that touches on your obsessions.

  4. Russ Rogers says:

    I saw this movie. I was bored. And I too really wanted to like this movie. I thought it was better than Bakshi's "Wizards," but that is faint praise. It's easy to find Bakshi movies that are crappier than this. The movie doesn't end, it mercifully just stops. That's because it's part of a Trilogy and it did not make enough money to warrant it being finished.

    • Isaac says:

      It actually made nearly $90 million at the box office, as noted above. The sequel was never made because the studio executives at UA never read the book and had no idea what they were doing with the production and release of the movie.

      • Russ Rogers says:

        $90 Million in Box Office and they didn't make a sequel? That doesn't make sense. Unless the studio did some kind of survey asking people, "Are you eager to see a sequel?" And the answer was, "No."This came out during my senior year of High School. I had read the books. I played Dungeons and Dragons. I was the target market for this movie. I saw it in the theater. But, I just remember being glad that it was over. I was not looking forward to a sequel. And I will pass on the DVD/Blu-Ray.

      • mike weber says:

        UA was the releasing studio; the project was financed by Saul (I sue people for plagiarising their own songs") Zaentz's Fantasy Records.

        • mike weber says:

          OTOH, some of what's wrong with the film can admittedly be laid at the feet of the money-people cutting Bakshi's funding off prematurely … rather like what happened to Cameron on The Abyss.

          • Isaac says:

            They didn't cut the funds prematurely. UA funded the first film, then decided that what had been made told enough of the story that there didn't need to be a sequel.

          • mike weber says:

            Okay. I was perhaps a little less than precise.I didn't mean that there was no sequel because of a funds cut – i'm quite aware that that was a separate decision.What i meant was that several sources report that it became obvious during production that to fully realise his vision would have required an increase in budget, which the money people were unwilling to grant, and thus the finished product falls short of what was planned.My reference to "The Abyss" was to the fact that Cameron needed more money than he was budgeted to finish it his way and the studio denied the increase. (They also demanded he cut the projected running time by twenty or so minutes which did by simply not including the ending he had planned – which was heavily SFX-oriented.)

          • Isaac says:

            But you don't know that – you're just going by what people who had nothing to do with the production had to say, based on their own opinion.It seems clear to me that a lot of what has been attributed to supposed budget compromise was intentional – like the mix of live action and animation.

        • Isaac says:

          Fantasy Films was the production company. Without UA's support, they couldn't make the sequel.

          • mike weber says:

            A huge percentage of films are not made by the studios that release them, and haven't since the end of the "studio system" – they release them and provide production facilities. The studio may or may not also bankroll the film.

          • Isaac says:

            On this production, they required UA's money.

          • mike weber says:

            And you are sure that this is correct, vs. the published reports that the financing was from Zaentz that you discount, why?