Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

OK, who do you think represented the characters and thier personalities better.... The ones in the animated version or (so far) the 'live' version characters...

My opions...

I just saw the animated version tonight.... and those Wriaths scared me to death! Dang those glowing red eyes!! ((hates glowing eyes....unless they're soft green, gold, silver, or purple.....)) So I would have to say animated on those....

Hobbits- hmmm.... with the exception of Frodo, 'live' version.... There's something abotu pudgy lil Frodo that makes me smile...

umm... oh!

Galandriel: >.< I liked the animated version better.... The whole blowing up scene in the movie just didn't feel right...

For the rest I'd have to say live.... yeah....


One more note on the animated: FOr a PG movie, that thing was bloody enough! I mean, if I was a little kid, I woulnd't dare to sleep for a week! Oy!

Live for most I think..lotsa crazy types in the animated feature

The animated version had VERY good characterisation. Still a shame the second was never made.

John Hurt certainly had a better voice for Aragorn (and they had the decency to have him wielding Narsil!)

But we all know the live version is preferable now we have the technology to do it. I rather like the tributes to the animated version in FOTR- scenes done in exactly the same way, even altered from the book in that same way.

Christopher Lee is a better Saruman, though- no doubt there!

WEee! Replies!!

Yesh.........Mr. Lee....actually, scares me.... I kn ow, it's wierd, and I'm notsquimish.... but yesh....

LoL! Mom's gonna have a field day. I came stomping down the stairs screaming: "THEY ONLY DID HALF OF IT! THey only did HALF of it! And they didn't even end it where the Two Towers ended!!"

She was making fun of me for getting mad at her for saying around the same thing about FotR.... But with that they're sequels.... -.o

weee! 4-disk out today!!! *begs mom to take her somewhere to get it.*

Well, they didn't end it where TTT ended because it was in two parts, yeah, not three? Would have left not much at all for the second part of they had done both of the first two books...

Yesh...I mean, it was already 2 hours as it was.... they shuold have cut backa couple parts and squeezed in the other... or left half the end of what they had out to do a 2nd...

and....I just realized add....before I look totally stupid.... It's the 12th... not the 2nd... I thought so...but NOOO someone had to tell me wrong and get me all excited!! -.-

the animated film isnt that good, ush

For me the problem is that having lived with the annamated version for years the charicters are enbbeded in my mental picture of how it should look and sean bean was NOT my picture of Borromir he is (should be arogorn).
the film is as it is and misses some good parts, but the cartoon does the same, only when all three films are released with all the addons and I can spend a day on my own with a bottle or two and hot snacks to hand will I be happy about the whole trilogy thing
roll on 2004

sean bean was perfect

After seeing him play sharpe he was ,for me, arogorn , and don,t you think that sean connorey should have been gandalf?

no, not in any way. in fact I get sick at the very thought of it.

I thought the animated version was VERY good, Mah, and I am surprised at you.

OOOOOOO I step in in the opp. on animated version...

As far as holding story, it was iffy...Seen better, seen worse...

but i have to say this... as far as the actual ANIMATION element..... There were only a couple things I disagreed with... *sigh* And the old backgrounds!!

*yet another sigh* They just don't do 'cartoons' like they used too...they used to be works of art.... now... :-( ....ok, this is depressing to me now.... LoL

didn't see the animated version...but i liked the galadriel scene......."blowing up"?

It wasn't literal animation, Lari. The battle scenes were actually a primitive version of modern-day blue screen techniques. The animations over overlaid on real people which is why it is so phenomenally accurate.

then why didn,t they over lay the people over the cartoon to make the film even more phenomenalllyul (sorry I carn,t seem to end that word LOL )

I'm not sure I've ever seen the animated version of LOTR I remember seeing The Hobbit a very long time ago though....though I'd still go with the people version.....

Hobbit was no good at all.

must addmit never seen it

...........to the reply about it not being real animation:

.....that was half my point....doyou REALLY think what i see today in the 'kids' movies as REAL animation??? It's all half *beep* done on computer now.... I mean, there's nothing wrong with that IF they actually take thier time -.-...... so , yeah....

and i haven't seen the hobbit

Yes, but with computers it is still animation. This had a filming element.

I liked the animated one...but i was surprised to know that for Frodo's character they used an ex-mouseketeer which they had to tape down her rather voluptuous breasts...

whoa, thatwas a seriously huge and over-due *bump* Feanor my man

motion picture characters of course, except we get to see Tom Bambadil

ur on a bumping spree. be careful

um...how come???

some threads should remain buried. I really don't know. Have fun, though

*points*

gotcha...

DUDE! are you crazy?!?! thats what got me into LOTR! It was on tv alot when i was little, and i would ask my parents if there was a book. I bought it on DVD at christmas time. It is a piece of art. UNLIKE the animated lotr.

why does this discussion keep popping up!?!?!

Hobbit is a great book, its especially good cause it is easy to read and is quite short and doesnt take up too much lady time

not that you have any to take up

*sigh*

Discos - true weep

Queen-live-love of my life-

brian may: this is the bit where the guitarist gets to speak.... occasionally
freddie: no it isnt

*EHEM*



*agrees with AE*

Unfortunately I haven't seen the hob yet, but I didnt like the animated LoTR because it absolutely didn't get the atmosphere and style of the book
It had so little love for details

And worst of all
They pronounced everything so incorrectly
Like "sell-a-born" for Celeborn

Aruman!

thats what I did, I still do, to a certain extend

extenT

illeterate as well as foolish

God man, what's not good about the animated version (the 1978 one, right?), I mean, even Anthony Daniels was in it!

depending on one's taste you may not like the hobbit anymore than you did the animated lotr...

more than likely those that made the animated version did not communicate with the Tolkien estate or utilized technical consultants to ensure that movie was correctly done, e.g., pronunciation of names and the proper costuming of characters...

the atmosphere while dark and very seventyish with the effects, was good for its' time...and I'll admit, I do own the DVD and have watched it with PJ's version...

there are some similarities and differences...the scene of the nazguls entering the room where the hobbits supposedly slept in and then striking the beds are almost the same in PJ's...

Smeagol in both versions are almost exactly alike with slight differences in facial style and voice...

Elijah Woods and the animated character almost speak in similar accents...

the one draw back that I did not like in the animated version was how the orcs were portrayed...

Who Knows??!!??

But as long as it does, I will add my 2 cents... I think that they are both wonderful, but you are kidding yourself if you think the animated films are better than the PJ masterpieces. I mean, c'mon. I can live without the animated dvd's, but I was foaming at the mouth for my Return of the King DVD this may, and I am already feining for my Extended Edition, LOL...

So, in brief, they are both great, but The LOTR by Peter Jackson takes the cake.

argh i should keep copying and pasting my replies to these similiar threads, saves me the extra typing when i could be wrting for another forum.

or you can just ignore said thread and be done with it...

quite a few people are fascinated by the fact that there was an animated version, though badly done compared to PJ's work, still nonetheless for those that do, e.g., me, do happen to like it...it is a small gem in all things Tolkien...

True,
Galadriel's words in the Mirror-scene were also exactly the same - at least in the German versions - but in the animated version Galadriel says it in such a childish and happy way that it ruins the wonderful text it sounds like singing a children's song or something PJs version also exaggerates a little with the "dark queen" and whatnot, but I still like it better than the animated one

Hm, the Ringwraiths were funny... especially their horses... one or two of them had horns and they could apparate and disapparate

The orcs were imo stupid I'm also not really happy with PJs idea of what they look like, but the animated ones were simply silly and had weird teeth

they sort of looked like warthogs on two legs...

I think it's sad that all the filmmakers see orcs so un-human
Of course they were not elfy-prissy, but that doesnt mean they had 5cm-long teeth and slit eyes and grunt instead of speaking

and they wore no armour...a cloth tied with a leather belt...and you couldn't tell who was Uruk and who wasn't...